MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921190722 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.29876018

<b>The global trade of rarity</b>

2025· article· en· W6921190722 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Administration and Political Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlife tradeIndigenousEndemismEndangered speciesConvention on Biological DiversityWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The script run analyses of the Global trade of rare species of Orchids. The File is a R script containing the most relevants analyses. Data wrangling was performed using script "exploration" and "Taxonomic curation". In "orc_22", the analyses and figure's scripts to reproduce the resullts of the paper.<br><br>Novelty is highly valued in global wildlife trade, with small-range and newly described species often particularly sought-after. Yet current regulations are insufficient to trace the origin and extent of sensitive species in global trade. Focusing on orchid trade under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species-CITES between 1977-2022, we found that Colombia and Ecuador are export hubs of native species. Whilst, 705 species were never traded from their native countries, with Germany, Canada, Netherlands, and South Korea key exporters, and USA a key importer of non-native species. Single-country endemics dominate species-level trade, whilst 155 newly described species entered trade within 2-years of description. Concerningly, 248.6 million individuals have been traded under ambiguous genus- or family-level names. This highlights systematic issues hampering the transparency, traceability, and regulation of international trade, and future challenges for ensuring native range countries receive adequate compensation through Access and Benefit Sharing agreements.<br>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueFigshareSame topicPublic Administration and Political AnalysisFrench-language works237,207