MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Malaysia's Policy and Innovation Technology in Biodiversity Conservation

2024· article· en· W4408861955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityBiodiversity conservationBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaysia is a megadiverse country with natural ecosystems consist of an immense variety of wild plants and animals. These natural ecosystems also contain a diverse array of flora and fauna communities. Malaysia's rich biodiversity constitutes an extraordinary natural capital that maintains its natural environment and the life-support systems that give us food, water, and numerous economic benefits. The first National Policy on Biological Diversity was formulated in 1998. Current policy, The National Policy on Biological Diversity 2022-2030 (NPBD 2022-2030), is with the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted after the 15th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15), 2022. NPBD, through its 5 goals, 17 targets, and 61 actions, provides the direction and framework for Malaysia to conserve its biodiversity. However, the country's transition to becoming a developed, high-income nation has exerted various pressures on its biodiversity, leaving many species vulnerable, with some even facing threats of extinction. Other pressures that threaten Malaysia's biodiversity include habitat fragmentation, invasive alien species, pollution, poaching, increasing competition for land, and climate change. Advances in technology and digital innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), drone, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing, are stepping in to revolutionize biodiversity monitoring. These tools are making biodiversity assessments more efficient, scalable, and cost-effective, thus offering a new frontier for conservation efforts. As the biodiversity crisis deepens, the integration of technology innovation into mainstream conservation monitoring will be the key.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0170.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207