The applicability of regional red list assessments for soil invertebrates: first assessment of five native earthworm species in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Earthworms (Annelida: Clitellata: Crassiclitellata) are prominent members of the soil community, important to many ecosystem functions. Despite this, and like many other soil invertebrates, they are rarely considered in conservation assessments, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessments used to assess species’ extinction risk. To investigate the applicability of the IUCN Regional Red Listing protocol to soil invertebrates, we assessed the conservation status of five earthworm species native to Canada using this protocol and all available occurrence records. In Canada, no earthworm species have yet been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Due to the lack of data on population sizes and their trends, all five species were assessed using their Extent of Occurrence (EOO) (Criterion B). One species was assessed as Vulnerable ( Arctiostrotus vancouverensis) , two were assessed in non-threatened categories ( A. perrieri and Sparganophilus tamesis ), and two were assessed as Data Deficient ( A. fontinalis and Toutellus oregonensis ). For the majority, the main threats identified were the continuing loss of potential habitat due to land conversion and resource exploitation, as well as the effects of climate change. Increasing the amount of data, including but not limited to distribution and habitat preferences, would make the assessment process easier and status decisions better supported. By undertaking regional assessments for five native earthworm species in Canada, we show that Regional Red List assessments are feasible for soil invertebrates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".