MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408485355 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-18982

Protected areas desperately need climate connectivity

2025· preprint· en· W4408485355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hui Dang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeGeographyBusinessGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, numerous efforts have been made to conserve biodiversity. However, official assessments from the Convention on Biological Diversity indicate that none of the proposed biodiversity conservation targets have been fully achieved. These efforts have often prioritized expanding protected areas, while overlooking the critical importance of climate connectivity, which is essential for species adaptation to climate change. Despite the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework stressing the importance of enhancing ecosystem connectivity to mitigate climate impacts, it remains frequently overlooked in early protected area planning. This oversight is a widespread issue across many countries.To reverse this alarming situation, we call for the establishment of a network of terrestrial protected areas with broad climate connectivity to enhance the resilience of species to climate change. The terrestrial network should include wildlife corridors, rich refuges for rare and endangered species, a variety of ecosystems and areas from low to high elevations. A more effective network of climate-resilient terrestrial protected areas will contribute greatly to the achievement of biodiversity conservation targets from local to global scales in the 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem Services→French-language works237,207→