MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036087272

Alberta species at risk program and projects.

2001· article· en· W7036087272 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceAustralian GovernmentFisheries and Oceans CanadaAlberta-Pacific Forest IndustriesAlberta Ecotrust FoundationConcordia University of EdmontonAlberta Conservation AssociationCanadian Natural Resources LimitedConcordia UniversityAlberta Beef Producers
Keywordsnot available
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTINUED identifying those species that require more focused attention, either for protection or accurate evaluation.In 2000, preliminary status assessments were prepared for 4735 species of plants, vertebrates, invertebrates and fungi, greatly expanding the scope of the general status assessment process.The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000 i/Klbena Sustainable Resource Development 2001 ) includes butterflies, orchids, ferns, fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, all of which have also been assessed and reported on nationally.The 2005 assessment of the general status of wild species in Alberta will provide updated status evaluations for all species assessed in The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000, and in addition will report on the following species groups for the first time: additional vascular plant subgroups, odonates (dragonflies), bivalves (mussels and clams), and crayfish.These taxonomic groups will also be assessed and reported on nationally in 2005.Species that are assigned a general status of Undetermined become priorities for data collection to resolve their general status, and may feed into the detailed status assessment process described below.2) Detailed Status Assessment Detailed status reports, which provide a costs were covered from funds outside the Species at Risk Program.All project proposals were critically reviewed by Species at Risk staff and ranked using the following criteria: 1) the status of the target species; 2) existing commitments (e.g., ministerial priority, recovery planning and implementation, ongoing project requiring completion); and 3) the scope and impact of the proposed project (e.g., provincial vs. local scope; offering direct vs. indirect conservation benefits).Consideration was also given to ensure that progress would be made in INTRODUCTION...CONTINUED all five program areas, from general status assessment to prevention.Approximately $349 000 of the provincial Species at Risk Program budget was allocated directly to species at risk projects and recovery planning and implementation.The accompanying three charts show the breakdown of these project funds by program area, risk category and species'groups.Communication/resource tool initiatives appear as a stand-alone category in the species'groups and risk category charts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.013

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution)Same topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207