MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116963585 · doi:10.1111/csp2.70125

Stability and connection: Climate‐informed Modernized Land Use Planning on the south coast of British Columbia

2025· article· en· W7116963585 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory Kehm, Isabelle Houde, Jessica Stolar

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)Land-use planningLand useResilience (materials science)Plan (archaeology)Adaptive managementBiodiversitySpatial planningPsychological resilienceAdaptation (eye)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an era of environmental instability, climate‐informed land‐use planning allows preparation for a more resilient future. By identifying places with high climate‐change refugia potential and climate connectivity, management and stewardship plans can be adapted over time to achieve biodiversity goals. The objective of the Climate‐informed Conservation Planning project is to provide an efficient pathway for collaborative planning between Indigenous and provincial governments to develop a long‐term management approach to maintain environmental and cultural values while reducing the risks from climate change. Working directly with the shíshálh‐BC Modernized Land Use Planning table on the South Coast of British Columbia to support climate‐resilient planning, this process identified areas projected to have refugia potential, to maximize habitat connectivity, to monitor ecosystem resilience variables, and to realize planning objectives within dynamic adaptive planning cycles. Key activities include: (a) introducing the climate‐change refugia concept and other knowledge translation activities, (b) identifying and evaluating spatial priorities for conservation management with higher potential for climate‐change refugia and connectivity, (c) customizing priority scenarios with additional data and local knowledge to highlight where the best conservation investments might contribute to local and provincial biodiversity goals, and (d) suggestions for implementing the plan dynamically and proactively to mitigate current and emerging environmental risks with monitoring, reporting, and proactive adaptation planning cycles.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation Science and PracticeSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207