Uncovering antagonisms in recovery planning for species at risk: A diagnostic approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amid Earth's ongoing sixth mass extinction event, numerous measures have been proposed to recover the populations of species at risk of extinction. However, the methods and objectives of different species' recovery plans sometimes conflict with each other, causing a conundrum we refer to as recovery – action antagonism . Recovery–action antagonism reduces the cost‐effectiveness of conservation programs and can increase the extinction risk of nontarget species. We describe a method to identify interactions between recovery actions, including antagonisms proposed for different at‐risk species in a given location. The method includes a process to evaluate potential drivers of recovery‐action antagonism and other interaction types using principal coordinates analysis and distance‐based redundancy analysis. We illustrate various applications of the method through case studies performed in Pelee Island and Rouge National Urban Park, two biodiverse areas in Ontario, Canada. Potential antagonism was identified between 1.5% (Pelee) and 5% (Rouge) of the evaluated recovery actions. Although the rate of antagonism was low in our case studies, the method allows the identification of a variety of interactions, which can help to prioritize similar and complementary actions that will benefit a large number of species while minimizing actions that may have competing outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it