Long-term monitoring projects of Brazilian marine and coastal ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity assessment is a mandatory task for sustainable and adaptive management for the next decade, and long-term ecological monitoring programs are a cornerstone for understanding changes in ecosystems. The Brazilian Long-Term Ecological Research Program (PELD) is an integrated effort model supported by public funds that finance ecological studies at 34 locations. By interviewing and compiling data from project coordinators, we assessed monitoring efforts, targeting biological groups and scientific production from nine PELD projects encompassing coastal lagoons to mesophotic reefs and oceanic islands. Reef environments and fish groups were the most often studied within the long-term projects. PELD projects covered priority areas for conservation but missed sensitive areas close to large cities, as well as underrepresenting ecosystems on the North and Northeast Brazilian coast. Long-term monitoring projects in marine and coastal environments in Brazil are recent (<5 years), not yet integrated as a network, but scientifically productive with considerable relevance for academic and human resources training. Scientific production increased exponentially with project age, despite interruption and shortage of funding during their history. From our diagnosis, we recommend some actions to fill in observed gaps, such as: enhancing projects' collaboration and integration; focusing on priority regions for new projects; broadening the scope of monitored variables; and, maintenance of funding for existing projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".