MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390658669 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00275-9

Can the planetary health concept save freshwater biodiversity and ecosystems?

2024· article· en· W4390658669 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven J. Cooke, Abigail J. Lynch, David Tickner, Robin Abell, Tatenda Dalu, Kathryn J. Fiorella, Rajeev Raghavan, Ian Harrison, Sonja C. Jähnig, Derek Vollmer, Stephen R. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinLeibniz-GemeinschaftCarleton UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsBiodiversityFreshwater ecosystemThreatened speciesHabitat destructionGeographyOverexploitationEcosystemFreshwater fishOverfishingPopulationEcologyHabitatFisheryBiologyFishingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rivers, wetlands, lakes, and other freshwater ecosystems collectively cover only 1% of the Earth's surface. Yet, these ecosystems support a disproportionately large and vast array of biodiversity. Currently, these ecosystems face many threats, including pollution, habitat alteration, fragmentation, invasive species, overexploitation, overabstraction, climate change, and other emerging stressors. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature's Living Planet Index, freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity are considered among the most threatened on the planet, with average declines of approximately 83% in the populations of freshwater organisms since 1970.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207