Applying the Key Biodiversity Area Standard to Important Sites for Sharks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commits nations to conserving 30% of coastal and marine areas, “especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity.” Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) provide a standardized approach for recognizing sites holding a significant proportion of the global population or extent of species or ecosystems. However, concerns about the relevance of this approach for broadly distributed and/or highly mobile aquatic vertebrates prompted development of parallel approaches focused on critical areas for life‐history processes, including Important Shark and Ray Areas (ISRAs). We examine these approaches and assess whether important areas for sharks, rays, and chimaeras (“sharks”) can qualify as KBAs, by applying the KBA criteria to ISRAs. One fifth of ISRAs could be recognized as KBAs. KBAs could be recognized for three quarters of globally threatened and two thirds of non‐threatened restricted‐range sharks based on published range maps. For broadly distributed species, additional information (e.g., on aggregations) is needed to recognize important sites as KBAs. Our results show that these approaches are complementary, highlighting the potential for ISRAs to contribute to KBA assessments while ensuring important sites for sharks are mapped and available to inform government actions to meet global commitments for conserving biodiversity in coastal and marine areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".