MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412387822 · doi:10.1038/s41559-025-02754-z

Combining science and policy for a unified global soil biodiversity observatory

2025· article· en· W4412387822 on OpenAlexaff
J Parnell, Peter de Ruiter, Carlos Guerra, Luca Montanarella, Natalia Rodríguez, Talita Ferreira, Maria Elizabeth Fernandes Correia, Cíntia Carla Niva, Ederson da Conceição Jesus, M Oliveira, Luiz Fernando de Sousa Antunes, L. M. Parron, Márcia Reed Rodrigues Coelho, Guilherme Montandon Chaer, Juaci Vitória Malaquias, O. D. D. da Silva, I. de C. Mendes, Zoë Lindo, Jeff Battigelli, Gian Luca Bagnara, Rosalina González Forero, Rosa M. Poch, Diana H. Wall, Leena Vilonen, Giulio Malorgio, Carlos Barreto, M. Kobayashi, Rosa Cuevas-Corona, George Gardner Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Ecology & Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentrale des Syndicats du QuébecNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservatoryBiodiversityScience policyEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEcologyBiologyAstronomyPhysicsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective conservation of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services in the face of global-change threats requires improvements in national monitoring. We outline the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, an initiative that aims to develop standardized indicators and enhance national monitoring capacities to support evidence-based policymaking and facilitate global assessments.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.024
Open science0.0040.026
Research integrity0.0210.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Ecology & EvolutionSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207