MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382584878 · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100462

Need of a paradigm shift to conserve endangered species in China’s national park system

2023· review· en· W4382584878 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Innovation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJoint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Karst Science Research Center of Guizhou ProvinceDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan ProvinceChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAiluropoda melanoleucaEndangered speciesNational parkGeographyChinaNature reserveLeopardFlagship speciesHabitatGap analysis (conservation)BiodiversityTigerEnvironmental resource managementBiodiversity conservationEcologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As of 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimated that there are over 6,000 national parks (NPs) in more than 100 countries, most of which are strongly focused on endangered species.1 Over the past 6 years, China has invested US $20 million in developing the Giant Panda National Park (GPNP) and a further US $16 million in establishing the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park (NCTLNP). Additionally, a naturally protected area (PA) management system with NPs as the main body was planned to be built, along with the newest Asian Elephant National Park.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.209 · 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