<scp>EarthRanger</scp>: An open‐source platform for ecosystem monitoring, research and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective approaches are needed to conserve the planet's remaining wildlife and wilderness landscapes, especially concerning global biodiversity conservation targets. Here, we present a new software system called EarthRanger: an open‐source platform built to help monitor, research and manage ecosystems. EarthRanger consists of seven main components (Core Server, API, Storage, Gundi, Web App, Mobile App, Ecoscope) that provide functionality for data (i) aggregation & collection, (ii) storage & management, (iii) real‐time and post hoc analysis, (iv) visualisation and (v) dissemination. The mobile application provides field‐based data recording and visualisation tools. EarthRanger may be deployed for single project use or can aggregate across multiple geographies as a centralised hub. EarthRanger can be used to collect standardised tracking data (e.g. from wildlife collars, vehicles and ranger patrols) and configurable event information (e.g. a singular recording with associated user‐defined attribute information such as a wildlife sighting or encounter with a poacher). Since development began in 2015, the platform has (at the time of writing) been deployed at over 500 sites across 70 countries and with myriad configurations and objectives. EarthRanger has improved the ability to monitor data feeds and manage conservation‐related operations in real time. For instance, the deployment of EarthRanger by African Parks has led to the removal of over 50,000 snares, steady population growth of key species of concern and near cessation of poaching. In Liwonde's protected area, enhanced mitigation efforts supported by EarthRanger reduced the number of deaths from wildlife conflict by more than 91%. EarthRanger is also providing a platform to enhance standardisation, aggregation, transfer and long‐term storage of ecological information and promote collaboration between groups conducting protected area management and ecology and biodiversity research.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".