Conservation of Places Versus Processes: A response to: Rowe. 2001. 'In Search of Intelligent Life...'
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to add to Dr. Rowe's (2001) points.Environmental practitioners working in the field of land use planning are forced to deal with professionals and municipalities that attempt to achieve conservation goals through the management of places.With this approach, they assume that critical bio-physical processes and services are maintained if special places are protected.They fail to realize that ecosystems are more fundamentally a collection of integrated processes relying on specific transfers of energy and nutrients, and that conservation would be better served by examining the requirements of these processes in order to integrate an appropriate mosaic of juxtaposed places and technologies with human settlement.It may be obvious to conclude that a river corridor requires protection to maintain its ecological functions, but less clear is the need to maintain adjacent tableland succesional areas while allowing uncontrolled urban expansion on active agricultural land that may be more ecologically "strategic" for regional processes.One "place" (with existing vegetation) takes precedence over another (which may be visually sterile) without consideration of the species or lands carrying out critical transfers of materials through the region.There is clearly a need to re-define the application of ecological sciences in traditional resource management and land use fields.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it