What Will Count?—Evidence for the Global Recognition of Other Effective area–based Conservation Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Other effective area–based conservation measures (OECMs) are anticipated to play an important role in progress towards global protection targets, with progress being judged on the basis of the areas reported to the World Database on Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures (WD‐OECM). Given concerns that OECMs may be designated inappropriately, in this study we asked what evidence has been provided to show that sites have been assessed against the criteria to be OECMs. We found <5% of the 6,482 sites in the dataset provide supporting information of any kind, and 2.2% of sites have features that conflict with the definition of an OECM. Although our results cannot determine if sites genuinely meet the criteria to be recognized as OECMs, they reveal a significant issue with the ability to verify whether sites should be in the WD‐OECM. To increase the credibility of OECMs, we recommend sites be classed as unconfirmed until they can demonstrate they meet the relevant criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".