Evaluation of federal habitat stewardship projects for aquatic species at risk in Canada: The province of Ontario as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP) is a major pillar in Canada’s National Strategy for the Protection of Species at Risk that supports projects assisting the recovery of species at risk (SAR). To assess long-term and biological outcomes and evaluate taxonomic and geographic coverage of HSP-funded projects using Ontario as a case study, 95 HSP-funded projects for aquatic SAR (2006-2017), were evaluated. Fifteen million CAD was allocated to 66 habitat stewardship projects targeting aquatic SAR. Twenty-nine fish and mussel SAR were targeted in 12 watersheds located primarily in southwestern Ontario. Greater funding was allocated to multi-year projects targeting higher numbers of SAR. Future funding should target geographically widespread SAR and SAR-rich watersheds in southwestern Ontario. To align stewardship actions with aquatic SAR recovery priorities, proposals and reports must identify the threats being addressed by stewardship actions. Standardized pre- and post-activity monitoring should be required to ensure measurable conservation benefits and to enable assessment of the effectiveness of habitat stewardship actions. Similar analyses should be undertaken in other Canadian provinces and territories to evaluate the HSP nationwide.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".