Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current endangered species list has its administrative beginnings in 1964 when the Department of the Interior's Committee on Rare and Endangered Wildlife Species published a preliminary list of 62 species at risk of extinction (Goble, forthcoming). Following the enactment of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (ESPA), the secretary of the interior in 1967 published the first official list of 78 "native fish and wildlife threatened with extinction" (ESPA sec. l(c); U.S. Department of the Interior 1967; Wilcove and McMillan, this volume). By the time the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was adopted in 1973, there were 392 species on the list (Yaffee 1982). These first lists included only vertebrate species. On the thirtieth anniversary of the ESA, the number stood at 1,260 domestic species and 558 foreign species (USFWS 2003a), with plant and invertebrate species outnumbering vertebrates. This chapter presents a graphical summary encapsulating thirty years of species protection and restoration under the ESA. The summary reveals both gains and losses. For some species, such as the Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), the process worked as it was meant to, reversing decline and restoring populations to healthy levels (USFWS 2001a); for others, such as the dusky seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus nigrescens), the process failed, and despite being listed the species continued to spiral toward eventual extinction (USFWS 1983; Walters 1992). What follows is an assessment of the state of species protection as it has evolved under the ESA. This includes the taxonomie and demographie distribution of listed species, and the number of critical habitat designations. We also examine newer legal tools for conserving habitat on private land (such as habitat conservation plans), various measures of the act's success, and funding levels for species protection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.874 | 0.923 |
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".