Report on the observed climate, projected climate, and projected biodiversity changes for Gaspésie National Park (Québec) under differing levels of warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaspesie National Park is among the top 8% of all non-marine protected areas, globally. The higher elevations of the park are projected to be resilient to climate change, even at 4°C. However, lower areas of the park, along waterways, are projected to require increasing levels of adaptation effort as warming levels exceed 3°C. Averaged over the entire area of this park, with 4°C warming (global, above pre-industrial), the area is projected to remain climatically suitable for 77.9% of its terrestrial biodiversity (fungi, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates), with 44.6% of its area remaining an overall refugia (remaining climatically suitable for >75% of the species) for biodiversity. If warming levels were held to 2°C, 94.2% of the area would remain a climatic refugia and the area would remain climatically suitable for 91.1% of its terrestrial biodiversity. Between 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 the average monthly temperature has increased by 0° - 1.7°C (December). With warming levels of 2.0°C the new average monthly temperature is equivalent to that only seen 1 in 3 years in 1961-1990, except for June – September having a new average temperature equivalent to that experienced 1 in 20 years. Three months have seen decreases in precipitation (August, November, December) with the rest seeing little change or increases. Models project that all months will become wetter. The number of months classified as being in severe drought have decreased between 1961-1990 and 1986-2015, while the number of months classified as being waterlogged has more than doubled. Under the climate change scenarios examined the number of months in severe drought are projected to decline to 3°C at which point they are projected to increase. The number of months in a waterlogged state are projected to increase at all warming levels. Biodiversity adaptation options generally allow for business-as-usual conservation, especially at higher elevations, taking into account changes in extreme events. However, lower elevations along waterways would need increasing levels of adaptation effort, especially with warming levels of 3°C and above.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".