MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113087606

To What Extent Have the Mandates of Transportation Agencies Been Improved Regarding the Consideration of Biodiversity? An International Comparison

2025· other· en· W7113087606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityAgency (philosophy)BiodiversityConventionOpenness to experienceNatural resourceDiversity (politics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transportation infrastructure, particularly road networks, have significantly contributed to the social and economic development of many countries. However, roads also negatively impact biodiversity through habitat fragmentation, degradation, and wildlife-vehicle collisions. The project has two goals: to examine the global extent of biodiversity consideration in transportation agency mission statements and to identify barriers to integrating biodiversity, surveying Canadian and U.S. transport officials. Guided by the ‘polluter pays principle’, we ask: to what extent do agencies consider biodiversity, and what challenges or opportunities exist? We hypothesize that countries who signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) should show an increased openness to biodiversity consideration, 30 years after the agreement’s 1992 signing by 196 nations. Methods include a dimensional cluster analysis of 77 mission statements from Canada and its provinces, the U.S. and its states, and 13 CBD signatory countries. Hierarchical dendrograms and four linkage methods (‘Complete’, ‘Average’, ‘Single’, and ‘Ward.D2) were used to visualize similarities. France was the only country to explicitly mention ‘biodiversity’. Most statements emphasized human focused priorities like safety, economy, and quality of life, often omitting or vaguely referencing the natural environment. Survey findings revealed general openness to biodiversity inclusion but barriers such as public or managerial backlash, political constraints, misuse of funds, and concerns over greenwashing were cited. The mixed-methods approach aims to identify exemplary mission statements that can serve as biodiversity leadership models in the transport sector. It also seeks to provide strategies for overcoming identified barriers to biodiversity integration into agency mission statements worldwide. Keywords: Biodiversity, Transportation infrastructure, Mission statements, Polluter pays principle, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Dimensional cluster analysis, Barriers to biodiversity integration

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)French-language works237,207