MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387232810 · doi:10.3390/resources12100117

Rewilding the Detroit, Michigan, USA–Windsor, Ontario, Canada Metropolitan Area

2023· article· en· W4387232810 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John H. Hartig

Bibliographic record

VenueResources · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsWindsorMetropolitan areaStewardship (theology)Ecosystem servicesBeaverGeographyNatural resourceHabitatWildlifeBiodiversityEnvironmental stewardshipEnvironmental protectionEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementFisheryEnvironmental planningEcologyArchaeologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rewilding attempts to increase biodiversity and restore natural ecosystem processes by reducing human influence. Today, there is growing interest in rewilding urban areas. Rewilding of the Detroit, Michigan, USA and Windsor, Ontario, Canada metropolitan area, and its shared natural resource called the Detroit River, has been delineated through the reintroduction of peregrine falcons and osprey, and a return of other sentinel species like bald eagles, lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, walleye, beaver, and river otter. Rewilding has helped showcase the value and benefits of environmental protection and restoration, ecosystem services, habitat rehabilitation and enhancement, and conservation, including social and economic benefits. Improved ecosystem health and rewilding have become a catalyst for re-establishing a reconnection between urban denizens and natural resources through greenways and water trails. The provision of compelling outdoor experiences in nature, in turn, can help foster a personal attachment to the particular place people call home that can help inspire a stewardship ethic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResourcesSame topicEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207