Advancing the design and management of marine protected areas by quantifying the benefits of coastal ecosystems for communities
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
Coastal ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people are at risk from a changing climate and increasing human activities. Marine protected areas (MPAs) serve as a widely used conservation tool, and research on MPAs has recently expanded from a traditional focus on ecological outcomes to the inclusion of ecosystem services. However, the extent to which quantitative assessment of ecosystem services has informed MPA design and management remains unclear. In this review, we aim to understand the literature on societal benefits of coastal ecosystems within MPAs. We find that only a third of the papers quantify societal benefits and tend to focus on cultural and provisioning services while neglecting regulating services and health metrics. Furthermore, a subset of habitats (e.g., corals, mangroves) have received the greatest attention. Studies rarely evaluate ecosystem services to inform specific management strategies or options for MPA siting, monitoring, and financing. Our results suggest that comprehensively quantifying social-ecological relationships could help to advance MPA science and practice, fostering coastal resilience.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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