How ignoring detection probability hurts biodiversity conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation priorities and legal protections are often based on confirmed species occurrences. However, imperfect detection is likely the norm in biological surveys, resulting in negative consequences for conservation. Focusing on threatened species in the US and Canada, we show that detectability information appears to be lacking for most species that are conservation priorities. Although more research on species detection is needed, detectability estimates are important for many immediate decisions. Thus, we recommend: (1) estimating and accounting for detectability and designing rigorous surveys when confirming presence or absence is crucial. Otherwise, absence in surveys should be considered suggestive only and critical habitat should be managed even if species presences are unconfirmed. (2) When directly estimating detectability is prohibitively difficult, indirect estimates should be explored, for example through expert elicitation or trait‐based predictors. (3) Detectability should be explicitly incorporated into decisions to ensure that surveys and management actions are directed where they have the greatest potential benefit.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".