MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392516795 · doi:10.1002/aqc.4112

A feasibility study for the application of climate change vulnerability assessments on species in the <scp>Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area</scp>

2024· article· en· W4392516795 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Cogger, Ramón Filgueira, Erin Keenan

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeVulnerability (computing)Vulnerability assessmentEnvironmental resource managementArctic charGeographyVulnerable speciesMarine speciesMarine protected areaArcticFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceHabitatBiologyEndangered speciesPsychological resilienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change is disproportionately affecting Arctic ecosystems and their resident species, but knowledge gaps complicate conservation planning. A proof‐of‐concept application of existing trait‐based vulnerability assessment frameworks were applied to nine species from three different taxa (cetaceans, pinnipeds, marine fish) to determine their vulnerability under the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario. A literature review and data gap analysis were performed to quantify vulnerability and recommend future research priorities. Each assessed species was found to be highly vulnerable to climate change, with char, cod, and walrus being the most vulnerable. The largest data gaps include outdated or missing abundance measurements mortality rates in both marine mammals and fish, and reproductive behaviours for fish specifically. Future assessments should consider multiple emissions scenarios that match the ranges of migratory species not confined to the TINMCA. Providing a method to preliminarily evaluate climate change vulnerability may help mitigate issues brought by limited species experts, such as respondent fatigue. More refined scores will require the assistance of species experts, including biologists and Indigenous knowledge holders.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207