MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7140170624 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17259008

Maximizing Nature-based Solutions using Artificial Intelligence to align global biodiversity, climate, and water targets [dataset]

2025· article· W7140170624 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPython (programming language)Reinforcement learningCode (set theory)GridDownloadTable (database)Empirical researchSpatial analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, you will find the code and data produced for the manucript titled: "Maximizing Nature-based Solutions using Artificial Intelligence to align global biodiversity, climate, and water targets." You may download the project folder and run the code for Steps 1 and 2 in Python, Step 3 in R, and Step 4 in R and Python. The four main steps of this study are summarized in the flowchart (~/Code – NbS and RL/flowchart.pdf). The file named “code_data_explanation.xlsx” explains each code in detail. Below, we provide a general explanation of each methodological step. Step 1 simulates training data, and Step 2 trains an optimization model based on the training data in Python and the Reinforcement Learning algorithm CAPTAIN. The output trained model is found in: '~/steps1_2_Trained_model/full_monitor_protect_at_once_can.log'. Step 3 creates an empirical environment, i.e., 10X10 km Planning Units spatial fishnet grid in Canada with information about threatened biodiversity, ecological integrity, carbon, water, ecozones, provinces, and land tenure in Canada. The empirical environment is available at: ~/Code – NbS and RL/puInputs/10x10kmGridCan3347.gpkg. All the input data used to create this empirical environment were obtained from public data sources (Supplemental Information Table S1) and must be downloaded or requested (e.g., IUCN and BirdLife species data) from their original sources. However, we provide demonstration data for mammals to show how the Species Habitat Index, a proxy of ecological integrity, was calculated (Steps 3A to 3E). In Steps 4A to 4F, we prepared in R the data inputs for running the Reinforcement Learning algorithm CAPTAIN. These inputs include data displaying the presence of species across 10x10Km Planning Units (PUs) that were suitable for conservation (~/Code – NbS and RL/cpInputsOutputs/pusSpeciesDbCon_V20.csv) or restoration (~/Code – NbS and RL/ cpInputsOutputs/pusSpeciesDbRes_V20.csv) based on Step 3 processes. In turn, these inputs and data from the empirical environment are used for each conservation or restoration scenario. For example, Conservation Scenario 1 (~/Code – NbS and RL/ cpInputsOutputs/conSc1) contains a specific file for species occurrence (puvsp_...V20.csv), costs based on ecological Integrity values (pu_conSc....V20.csv), and the spatial location of 10x10Km Planning Units (Planning_Units_....V20.csv). Steps 4G to 4L use the data produced in Steps 4A to 4F to obtain Conservation and Restoration Priority Scenarios using the Reinforcement Learning agent trained in Step 2. In each scenario, the Reinforcement Agent will maximize species occurrence (puvsp_...V20.csv), while avoiding high costs (pu_conSc....V20.csv) across 10x10Km Planning Units (Planning_Units_....V20.csv'). Additionally, in each scenario, the agent is provided a total sum of costs or a budget to cost-effectively prioritize a desired number of Planning Units to either achieve a conservation or restoration area target. For example, in Conservation Scenario 1, the Reinforcement Learning agent maximizes species occurrence in areas suitable for conservation along with ecological integrity. As the agent is trained to avoid areas with high costs, this environmental variable was rescaled so that high Species Habitat Index values (i.e., a proxy for ecological integrity) represented a low cost. After ten iterations of the scenario, the summary of the areas prioritized by the Reinforcement Learning agent can be found in a file named “pusPriorityConSc1_V20.csv” inside the scenario folder (~/Code – NbS and RL/ cpInputsOutputs/conSc1). The results of this scenario and other scenarios can be visualized in Steps 4M and 4N.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.033

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→