Detecting and attributing the causes of biodiversity change: needs, gaps and solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue addresses the multifaceted problems of understanding biodiversity change to meet emerging international development and conservation goals, national economic accounting and diverse community needs. Recent international agreements highlight the need to establish monitoring and assessment programmes at national and regional levels. We identify an opportunity for the research community to develop the methods for robust detection and attribution of biodiversity change that will contribute to national assessments and guide conservation action. The 16 contributions of this issue address six major aspects of biodiversity assessment: connecting policy to science, establishing observation, improving statistical estimation, detecting change, attributing causes and projecting the future. These studies are led by experts in Indigenous studies, economics, ecology, conservation, statistics, and computer science, with representations from Asia, Africa, South America, North America and Europe. The results place biodiversity science in the context of policy needs and provide an updated roadmap for how to observe biodiversity change in a way that supports conservation action via robust detection and attribution science. This article is part of the theme issue 'Detecting and attributing the causes of biodiversity change: needs, gaps and solutions'.
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 | 0.061 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".