MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406904698 · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.12.002

Advances in systematic conservation planning to meet global biodiversity goals

2025· review· en· W4406904698 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvaine Giakoumi, Anthony J. Richardson, Aggeliki Doxa, Stefano Moro, Marco Andrello, Jeffrey O. Hanson, Virgilio Hermoso, Tessa Mazor, Jennifer McGowan, Heini Kujala, Elizabeth A. Law, Jorge G. Álvarez‐Romero, Rafael A. Magris, Elena Gissi, Nur Arafeh‐Dalmau, Anna Meta×as, Elina Virtanen, Natalie C. Ban, Robert Mzungu Runya, Daniel C. Dunn, Simonetta Fraschetti, Ibon Galparsoro, R. J. Smith, François Bastardie, Vanessa Stelzenmüller, Hugh P. Possingham, Stelios Katsanevakis

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Ecology & Evolution · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaDalhousie UniversityWorkers Compensation Board of British ColumbiaCarleton University
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
KeywordsBridging (networking)BiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem servicesBusinessEnvironmental planningDiversity (politics)Conservation biologyInclusion (mineral)Gap analysis (conservation)Computer scienceEcosystemEcologyPolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) involves the cost-effective placement and application of management actions to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives. Given the political momentum for greater global nature protection, restoration, and improved management of natural resources articulated in the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, assessing the state-of-the-art of SCP is timely. Recent advances in SCP include faster and more exact algorithms and software, inclusion of ecosystem services and multiple facets of biodiversity (e.g., genetic diversity, functional diversity), climate-smart approaches, prioritizing multiple actions, and increased SCP accessibility through online tools. To promote the adoption of SCP by decision-makers, we provide recommendations for bridging the gap between SCP science and practice, such as standardizing the communication of planning uncertainty and capacity-building training courses.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations64
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Ecology & EvolutionSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207