Supporting Information - A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This resource comprises the supporting information for "A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning." Appendix S1 (NCC Planning Document outlines) describes the outline of the Nature Conservancy of Canada's planning documents, indicating section headings which were used to structure the coding frame and analyses. The table also indicates which sections were analyzed in each portion of the study (meta-analysis or in-depth analysis). Appendix S2 (Document Analysis –– Explanatory Notes and Coding Frame) provides the document coding frames for both scales of analysis, with explanatory notes for each code and group indicating the criteria and justification for assigning codes. This coding frame is intended to be amended to fit any conservation organization's specific planning structure, and can be used in whole or in part. The coding frame is provided as a Word table, but was originally developed and employed in QSR International's NVivo software. Appendix S3 (NCC Conservation Evidence Survey Questionnaire) describes the survey approach and provides the survey questionnaire employed in this case study at the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
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 | 0.107 | 0.570 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.596 | 0.076 |
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".