MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404112932 · doi:10.1111/csp2.13255

Leveraging the Red List of Ecosystems for action on coral reefs through the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

2024· article· en· W4404112932 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of MelbourneDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidDeakin University
KeywordsCoral reefBiodiversityReefGeographyEcosystemAction (physics)Environmental issues with coral reefsEnvironmental resource managementOceanographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Countries have committed to conserving and restoring ecosystems after signing the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) will serve as a headline indicator to track countries' progress toward achieving this goal. Using Kenyan coral reefs, we demonstrate how nations implementing the GBF can use standardized estimates of ecosystem degradation from RLE assessments to support site‐specific management decisions. We undertook a reef‐by‐reef analysis to evaluate the relative decline of four key ecosystem components over the past 50 years: hard corals, macroalgae, parrotfish, and groupers. Using the two benthic indicators, we also calculated standardized estimates of state to identify reef sites which maintain a better condition through time relative to adjacent sites. Kenya's coral reefs have degraded across all four ecosystem components. At more than half the monitored sites parrotfish and grouper abundance declined by more than 50%, while coral cover and macroalgae‐coral ratio declined by at least 30%. This resulted in an Endangered threat status for coral reefs in Kenya (under criterion D of the RLE). The results can guide management actions related to 9 of the 23 GBF targets. For example, we identified several sites with relatively healthy benthic and fish communities as candidate areas for protection measures under Target 3. The RLE has a key role to play in monitoring and meeting the goals and targets of the GBF, and our work demonstrates how using the wealth of data within these assessments can inform local‐scale ecosystem management and amplify the GBF's impact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.248 · 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