MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

In situ conservation powered by Public Aquaria

2023· preprint· en· W4384156093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
João P.S. Correia, Nicole Kube, Lauren Florisson, Max Janse, Brian Zimmerman, Doris Preininger, Jonas Nowaczek, Anton Weissenbacher, Hugo Batista, Philippe Jouk

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurosWork (physics)Scope (computer science)GlobeInstitutionPolitical scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Environmental planningBusinessEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringBiologyLawEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Union of Aquarium Curators (EUAC) includes 150 members and is an important association for the European public aquarium community. Since 2004, over one quarter of a million euros were awarded by the EUAC Conservation Fund to approximately 50 projects, which spanned across the globe. While projects varied greatly in content and scope, several achieved a significant impact in local populations and/or their focus species. This paper reports on results achieved by these conservation efforts and what improvements can be made, to ensure that the funding is indeed invested in conservation efforts per se. Perhaps the most valid conclusion to be drawn from the list of projects covered in this work is the fact that, regardless of the outcome, as far as preservation of the species are concerned, local communities were actively engaged in a subject that would, otherwise, remain unknown to them. Additionally, these EUAC funded projects highlight how public aquarium activities reach far beyond the acrylic panels surrounding the tanks and indeed the walls of the institution, as they spread around the world and raise awareness within local communities to preserve biodiversity. These results further suggest that a future direction for EUAC, as well as the public aquaria it consists of, could – indeed should - include more strenuous lobbying with legislating bodies, to ensure more adequate – and stronger – in situ conservation measures. In conclusion, with so many doubts being raised by different movements about the existence of aquaria and zoos, it is important that the public is aware that it is their visit to see the ambassadors of different species of animals that supports the funding of many of these pilot projects that aim to preserve species in their natural environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.004

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→