Protected and conserved coastal areas in Canada: insights with respect to Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
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
Despite coastal area being recognised as an important subcomponent in protected and conserved areas targets for over a decade, it has been orphaned in both national and international reporting. In this paper, we provide the first progress report on protected and conserved coastal area in Canada. While 13.6 per cent of Canada’s coastal area is protected and conserved, there is substantial variation across Canada’s three oceans and Great Lakes, jurisdictional authorities, and marine/terrestrial ecosystems. Importantly, Manitoba (37.3 per cent) and the Yukon (45.1 per cent) have already achieved the 30 per cent coastal protection target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF). However, Newfoundland and Labrador (7 per cent) and the Northwest Territories (8 per cent) currently fall significantly short. Very poor protection is evident in several marine bioregions and terrestrial ecozones, including across the Arctic, the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelves (0.7 per cent) and the Hudson Bay Complex (5.1 per cent). The Great Lakes require urgent and focused conservation attention, with lakes Ontario (3.6 per cent) and Erie (3.7 per cent) exhibiting a dismal amount of coastal protected and conserved area. Our results highlight the importance of explicitly reporting on the status of coastal area protection and we outline several considerations that can be used by the global conservation community to support more effective coastal protection, accounting and reporting vis-à-vis Target 3 of the KM-GBF
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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