A framework for the detection and attribution of biodiversity change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The causes of biodiversity change are of great scientific interest and central to policy efforts aimed at meeting biodiversity targets. Changes in species diversity and high rates of compositional turnover have been reported worldwide. In many cases, trends in biodiversity are detected, but these trends are rarely causally attributed to possible drivers. A formal framework and guidelines for the detection and attribution of biodiversity change is needed. We propose an inferential framework to guide detection and attribution analyses, which identifies five steps-causal modelling, observation, estimation, detection and attribution-for robust attribution. This workflow provides evidence of biodiversity change in relation to hypothesized impacts of multiple potential drivers and can eliminate putative drivers from contention. The framework encourages a formal and reproducible statement of confidence about the role of drivers after robust methods for trend detection and attribution have been deployed. Confidence in trend attribution requires that data and analyses used in all steps of the framework follow best practices reducing uncertainty at each step. We illustrate these steps with examples. This framework could strengthen the bridge between biodiversity science and policy and support effective actions to halt biodiversity loss and the impacts this has on ecosystems. 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 | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".