MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404213191 · doi:10.60102/stacks-24004

Use of multi-modelling methods to inform conservation and reintroductions of pine marten Martes martes in Britain

2024· article· en· W4404213191 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny MacPherson, P. G. Wright, Nathan H. Schumaker, Sydney M. Watkins

Bibliographic record

VenueStacks. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsCanmore Museum and Geoscience Centre
FundersNatural EnglandU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsMartenGeographyEcologyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successful onset of recovery of the European pine marten (Martes martes) in some parts of Britain through range expansion and, more recently translocation for reintroductions, has resulted in a strong interest in reintroduction projects throughout the country. However, the geographic scope and conservation goals of these initiatives are often local and lack consideration of how they fit within the wider context of national-scale pine marten conservation. Here, we aim to maximize conservation benefit strategically at a national level by developing a simple, transparent, and transferable framework based on landscape modelling methods and spatially explicit population viability analyses. Our new methodology has been developed specifically to inform decisions involving the spatial targeting of pine marten conservation measures. We began by applying habitat suitability and connectivity modelling at a national scale. Then, we performed spatially explicit life history simulations to assess the natural recovery of the species. This information was used to identify regions of interest for future reintroductions, and we performed subsequent simulations to assess the viability of a reintroduced population within each region. From all the regions assessed, we identified two that should be prioritized for further consideration based on our analyses of habitat suitability, connectivity and the viability of reintroduced populations. While our framework can be used to identify and prioritize regions of conservation value generally, our focus here is on the biological considerations associated with identifying suitable landscapes for pine marten reintroduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStacks.→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→