MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382753169 · doi:10.3390/land12071323

A Decision-Support Tool to Augment Global Mountain Protection and Conservation, including a Case Study from Western Himalaya

2023· article· en· W4382753169 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Jacobs, Clinton Carbutt, Erik A. Beever, J. Marc Foggin, Madeline Martin, Shane Orchard, Roger Sayre

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityBiodiversityGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem servicesProtected areaBiodiversity hotspotEcosystemLivelihoodEnvironmental protectionEcologyAgricultureEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mountains are remarkable storehouses of global biodiversity that provide a broad range of ecosystem services underpinning billions of livelihoods. The world’s network of protected areas includes many iconic mountain landscapes. However, only ca. 19% of mountain areas globally are protected (excluding Antarctica); many mountain areas are inadequately (<30% of their total terrestrial area) or completely unprotected. To support the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s lands by 2030, we have developed a strategic decision-support tool for identifying and prioritizing which candidate mountain areas most urgently require protection. To test its efficacy, we applied the tool to the Western Himalaya Case Study Area (WHCSA). The six-step algorithm harnesses multiple datasets including mountain Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), World Terrestrial Ecosystems, Biodiversity Hotspots, and Red List species and ecosystems. It also makes use of other key attributes including opportunities for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, developing mountain tourism, maintaining elevational gradients and natural ecological corridors, and conserving flagship species. This method resulted in nine categories of potential action—four categories for follow-up action (ranked by order of importance and priority), and five categories requiring no further immediate action (either because countries are inadequately equipped to respond to protection deficits or because their KBAs are deemed adequately protected). An area-based analysis of the WHCSA identified 33 mountain KBAs regarded as inadequately protected, which included 29 inadequately protected World Mountain Ecosystems. All 33 inadequately protected KBAs in the WHCSA are Category A1: first-priority mountain KBAs (located in the Himalaya Biodiversity Hotspot in developing countries), requiring the most urgent attention for protection and conservation. Priorities for action can be fine-filtered by regional teams with sufficient local knowledge and country-specific values to finalize lists of priority mountain areas for protection. This rapid assessment tool ensures a repeatable, unbiased, and scientifically credible method for allocating resources and priorities to safeguard the world’s most biodiverse mountain areas facing myriad threats in the Anthropocene.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207