MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893201008 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15127058

Bridging the Gap: Toward Inclusive and Equitable Social Impact Assessments in Conservation

2025· standard· en· W6893201008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · 2025
Typestandard
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)IndigenousContext (archaeology)Social impact assessmentSocial impactBiodiversity conservationTraditional knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the imperative for equitable and effective conservation has never been greater. In their comprehensive review, Dawson and Suich (2025) highlight a critical shortfall: social impact assessments (SIAs)—intended to evaluate how conservation initiatives affect human communities—remain poorly aligned with contemporary social objectives, particularly concerning the rights, knowledge systems, and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

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)0.271
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.285
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2710.285
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0230.043
Open science0.0120.027
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)French-language works237,207