Striking a balance between ecological, economic, governance, and social dimensions in marine protected area network evaluations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Marine protected area networks (MPANs) are promised as tools for protecting biodiversity and contributing to sustainable development. The variety of expected social‐ecological outcomes associated with MPANs underscores a need to consider ecological, economic, governance, and social dimensions in MPAN design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. However, little is known about how these four dimensions are considered or shaped by objectives. We conducted an online survey with MPAN managers, technical staff, and academics from across the globe (77 survey responses that described 48 MPANs located in 59 countries). Our findings confirmed that most MPANs have various co‐occurring, potentially conflicting objectives. MPANs with biodiversity and societal objectives considered attributes (e.g., human well‐being and economic distribution, institutional partnerships, and network‐specific ecological attributes) among all dimensions, with greater frequency than MPANs with only biodiversity objectives. Nonetheless, ecological attributes were always perceived as important irrespective of the MPAN objective. Reaching synergies between the multiple dimensions of MPANs can be challenging if dimensions get overlooked in MPAN evaluations. Identifying the important attributes considered in MPANs offers insight into the practice of MPAN design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation and can help improve MPAN success.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it