MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7058195928

Mapping Marine Ecosystem Service Values and Threats

2011· article· en· W7058195928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarine spatial planningEcosystem servicesEcosystemMarine protected areaVariety (cybernetics)Marine ecosystemResource (disambiguation)Natural resourcePerceptionSpatial ecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Recognizing that local knowledge and values should play a prominent role in natural resource decision-making, we tested a semi-structured interview protocol to solicit the verbal articulation, spatial identification and a quantitative measure of local monetary values, non-monetary values and threat intensity associated with marine ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the ecological processes through which nature provides benefits to people. Interviewees identified and characterized a wide range of ways in which they value marine ecosystems in the Regional District of Mount Waddington in British Columbia, Canada. This research is intended to inform an ongoing marine spatial planning process in this region. A total of 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted based on non-proportional quota sampling to target interviewees with a variety of marine-related occupations who live across the district. There was significant spatial overlap among all three pair-wise comparisons of monetary values, non-monetary values, and threat intensity values. Employment in salmon aquaculture correlated with the perception that the ocean does not face environmental threat associated with this industry. A minority of respondents refused to participate in the spatial and quantitative components of this research, yet all verbally identified the importance of marine ecosystems. The results of this research and the methods could complement deliberative processes to enable decision makers to more fully consider stakeholder???s non-monetary values and threats associated with ecosystem services."

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207