MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310365821 · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2022.10.005

A global biological conservation horizon scan of issues for 2023

2022· review· en· W4310365821 on OpenAlexaff
William J. Sutherland, Craig Bennett, Peter N. M. Brotherton, Holly M. Butterworth, Mick N. Clout, Isabelle M. Côté, Jason Dinsdale, Nafeesa Esmail, Erica Fleishman, Kevin J. Gaston, James E. Herbert‐Read, Alice C. Hughes, Hermanni Kaartokallio, Xavier Le Roux, Fiona A. Lickorish, Wendy Matcham, Noor Noor, James E. Palardy, James W. Pearce‐Higgins, Lloyd S. Peck, Nathalie Pettorelli, Jules Pretty, Richard Scobey, Mark Spalding, Femke H. Tonneijck, Nicolas Tubbs, James Watson, Jonathan Wentworth, Jeremy D. Wilson, Ann Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Ecology & Evolution · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooSimon Fraser University
FundersInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'EnvironnementNatural Environment Research CouncilArcadia FundCambridge Conservation InitiativeSight Research UKRoyal Society
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEcosystemHorizonEnvironmental scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningEcologyEconomicsBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of our 14th horizon scan of issues we expect to influence biological conservation in the future. From an initial set of 102 topics, our global panel of 30 scientists and practitioners identified 15 issues we consider most urgent for societies worldwide to address. Issues are novel within biological conservation or represent a substantial positive or negative step change at global or regional scales. Issues such as submerged artificial light fisheries and accelerating upper ocean currents could have profound negative impacts on marine or coastal ecosystems. We also identified potentially positive technological advances, including energy production and storage, improved fertilisation methods, and expansion of biodegradable materials. If effectively managed, these technologies could realise future benefits for biological diversity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Ecology & EvolutionSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207