An interoperable and standardized protocol for reporting systematic conservation planning projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Systematic conservation planning ( SCP ) is an operational and scientific framework that assists in deciding where, how, and when to implement conservation intervention. Studies using SCP approaches have proliferated due to their immediate relevance for applied conservation. For example, they can help identify cost‐effective opportunities for expanding areas under conservation management to achieve high‐level policy goals such as those of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet SCP can be conducted in various ways, and results can vary depending on problem formulation, parameterizations, contexts, and prioritization approaches. There is a need to facilitate comparison of SCP studies to understand key criteria and assumptions made in the planning process. Here, we propose a standardized reporting protocol for SCP that is readily applicable across study aims, realms, and spatial scales. The new Overview and Design Protocol for Systematic Conservation Planning ( ODPSCP ) describes the key steps from the design to the computational stages of SCP . It enables researchers, scientific editors, and decision‐ and policymakers to assess the scope and comprehensiveness of SCP exercises. To facilitate uptake and ease of reporting, the protocol is openly available through an interactive web interface and which can be further enhanced following methodological advancements in conservation planning. We encourage the conservation community to adopt the reporting protocol to promote transparency and reproducibility, standardized reporting as well as facilitate peer review and independent evaluation.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it