Whose conservation, revisited: how a focus on people–nature relationships spotlights new directions for conservation science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Georgina Mace introduced a compelling perspective on the major shifts in conservation science's framing and purpose from 1960 to 2010. A decade ago, she proposed that the conservation community had begun to move into a new framing of 'people and nature' based on changes in perspectives on the relationships between people and nature and new interdisciplinary concepts and methods used in conservation. Progress in using this frame is clear as 'two-way dynamic relationships between people and nature' have since taken centre stage in science, practice and policy. Now, responding to concerns raised that current approaches to conservation are still not meeting the scale and complexity of the challenges of the Anthropocene, we explore a newly emerging framing of 'people with nature'-an inextricably intertwined perspective on people-nature relationships. This framing builds on Mace's recognition of interconnections and change, as well as new directions offered by conservation's recent transdisciplinary engagements, to go beyond the notion of two-way flows connecting people and nature to emphasize the relationships and inseparability of 'people with nature'. This emerging framing suggests new directions for conservation science and practice to make visible, improve and reimagine degraded people-nature relationships needed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".