MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386703084 · doi:10.1371/journal.pwat.0000101

The future of global river health monitoring

2023· article· en· W4386703084 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren M. Kuehne, Chris Dickens, David Tickner, Mathis Messager, Julian D. Olden, Gordon O’Brien, Bernhard Lehner, Nishadi Eriyagama

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Water · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersUniversité de LyonAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversity of WashingtonSchool of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementConvention on Biological DiversityEnvironmental planningScale (ratio)BusinessFood securityMonitoring and evaluationEcosystem healthSustainable developmentGlobal healthBiodiversitySustainabilityEcosystem servicesGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcosystemAgricultureHealth careEcologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rivers are the arteries of human civilisation and culture, providing essential goods and services that underpin water and food security, socio-economic development and climate resilience. They also support an extraordinary diversity of biological life. Human appropriation of land and water together with changes in climate have jointly driven rapid declines in river health and biodiversity worldwide, stimulating calls for an Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater ecosystems. Yet freshwater ecosystems like rivers have been consistently under-represented within global agreements such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Even where such agreements acknowledge that river health is important, implementation is hampered by inadequate global-scale indicators and a lack of coherent monitoring efforts. Consequently, there is no reliable basis for tracking global trends in river health, assessing the impacts of international agreements on river ecosystems and guiding global investments in river management to priority issues or regions. We reviewed national and regional approaches for river health monitoring to develop a comprehensive set of scalable indicators that can support “top-down” global surveillance while also facilitating standardised “bottom-up” local monitoring efforts. We evaluate readiness of these indicators for implementation at a global scale, based on their current status and emerging improvements in underlying data sources and methodologies. We chart a road map that identifies data and technical priorities and opportunities to advance global river health monitoring such that an adequate monitoring framework could be in place and implemented by 2030, with the potential for substantial enhancement by 2050. Lastly, we present recommendations for coordinated action and investment by policy makers, research funders and scientists to develop and implement the framework to support conservation and restoration of river health globally.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.020
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS WaterSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207