Botanic Gardens in Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainability: History, Contemporary Engagements, Challenges and Renewed Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A burgeoning body of scholarship identifies and discusses botanic gardens as increasingly important centres of biodiversity conservation and sustainability. Notwithstanding the high quality and richness of this literature, it encompasses relatively autonomous fields of expertise that are neither designed nor expected to promote cross-disciplinary, integrative, accounts of botanic gardens as institutions of conservation and sustainability. Bridging key aspects of the botanic garden literature, this article brings into conversation historical accounts with contemporary scholarship on the matter. In so doing, it unveils dilemmas and challenges faced by botanic gardens as they grapple with their historic legacies, but also renew their relevance in nurturing sustainable socio-environmental futures. The article proceeds by covering three focal points. First, it summarizes the scholarly literature on the history of botanic gardens. Second, it presents accounts of current scientific and biodiversity conservation endeavours as reflexive engagements with their historical legacies. Third, it addresses the recent emergence of socio-cultural missions at botanic gardens as a significant step beyond their historical focus on plants and plant ecosystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".