MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099591382

AND MARINE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION VISION IN NOVA SCOTIA

2015· article· en· W7099591382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Science and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservation PlanBiodiversityMarine conservationMarine protected areaMarine biodiversityBiodiversity conservationNatural (archaeology)Nova scotia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In May of 1999, a workshop was held to lay the groundwork for a conservation plan to maintain and restore terrestrial and marine biodiversity. The products of the workshop include vision maps and recommendations for biodiversity conservation in Nova Scotia. The wild lands conservation vision identifies existing protected areas, areas suitable for filling gaps in the representation of natural landscape types, and other areas of significant ecological value. Four types of conservation areas are proposed: 1) core areas, to be managed primarily for ecological processes; 2) connectivity zones between core areas; 3) aquatic/marine zones around islands, headlands, bays, lakes and rivers; and, 4) compatible use zones, which provide a buffer function while allowing for human uses. The wild seas conservation vision includes five conservation categories: 1) marine management units; 2) marine protected areas (MPA’s) selected with particular attention to the benthic zones (ocean floor); 3) core “no take ” zones in areas of unique or sensitive features, species or assemblages; 4) a special management zone for larval retention; and, 5) a “no-dragger ” zone to protect fragile deep sea corals.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Science and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207