bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.09.06.506545

A report card methodology to showcase progress towards threatened species recovery

Abstract

Among the conservation community, it is well known that Earths mass species extinction crisis is getting worse. Yet, an often neglected problem is the need for effectively communicating the species extinction crisis to diverse audiences in ways that catalyse immediate action. Here we generated a streamlined threatened species recovery report card methodology, which combined two input indicators including planning and funding, one output indicator capturing habitat protection, and one outcome indicator which highlights threatened species trajectories, to provide simple scores for all Australian threatened species. We show that just 41 (2.3%) of species achieved an A grade for the input indicator (i.e., recovery plans and federal funding), 240 (13.3%) achieved a C grade, and 1,521 (84.4%) achieved an F. Five hundred and twenty nine (29.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e, habitat protection), 130 (7.2%) achieved a B, 158 (8.8%) achieved a C, 189 (10.5%) achieved a D, 212 (11.8%) achieved an E, and 584 (32.4%) achieved a F. While five (0.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e., threat status improvement), every other species (99.7%) achieved an F. We provide a method to combine scores to test how individual jurisdictions are tracking and show that Australia is achieving an F for the input and outcome indicators, and a D for the output indicator. While the threatened species recovery report card highlighted a clear failure in many federal environmental legislation responsibilities, it provides a baseline from which different governments can track policy progress and outlines clear direction for immediate improvement including developing adequate recovery plans, funding the actions in the recovery plans, protecting habitat from further destruction, verifying recovery through monitoring and evaluation of species trajectories, and supporting transparency and collaboration on the execution on the plans through an improved data infrastructure. Without an immediate step change in how Australia communicates and faces its species crisis, we will leave a tragic legacy of extinction and fail our obligations to future generations of Australians, and the international community.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ward, M., Rout, T., Stewart, R., Possingham, H., McDonald-Madden, E., Clarke, T., Valentine, L., Kindler, G., Macmillan, E., Watson, J.. 2022-09-07. A report card methodology to showcase progress towards threatened species recovery. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.06.506545

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

Prototype matching: children's preference for forming scientific concepts

Inspired by a sample lesson, this paper studies and discusses childrens preferences in learning scientific concepts. In a "Dissolution" lesson, one of the students took the demonstration experiment of "carmine dissolves in Water" demonstrated by the teacher as the prototype to judge whether a new phenomenon belongs to dissolution, instead of analyzing and judging the phenomenon by using the dissolution definition. Therefore, we propose a conjecture that "prototype matching" may be a more preferred way for children to learn concepts than thinking through inquiry experiment, analysis, deduction, etc. To this end, we conducted a targeted test on 160 fifth grade students (all of whom had learned this lesson) from a primary school in Beijing, and used goodness of fit test to statistically analyze the results. The results showed that: {sscircled1} the Chi square of the general result is 73.865, P<0.001, indicating that children did have obvious prototype preference; {sscircled2} We "tampered" some of the prototypes, that is, they looked like the prototypes that the teacher had told students, but they were actually wrong. However, the results showed that children still preferred these so-called "prototypes" (chi square is 21.823, P<0.001). Conclusion: {sscircled1} Children have an obvious preference for "prototype matching" in scientific concept learning, which is not only obviously deviated from the current general understanding of science education that emphasizes inquiry construction, but also points out that there may be a priority relationship among various ways of concept organization (such as definition theory, prototype theory, schema theory, etc.). {sscircled2} Childrens preference for prototypes seems to be unthinking, and they will not identify the authenticity of prototypes, which is particularly noteworthy in front-line teaching.

scientific communication and education↗

Are we moving the dial? An evaluation of sex- and gender-based analysis integration in Canadian Institutes of Health Research-funded research from 2009-2020

BackgroundSex and gender impacts health outcomes and disease risk throughout life. The health of women and members of the Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual (2S/LGBTQ+) community is often compromised as they experience delays in diagnosis. Distinct knowledge gaps in the health of these populations has prompted funding agencies to mandate incorporation of sex and gender into research. Sex-and gender-informed research perspectives and methodology increases rigor, promotes discovery, and expands the relevance of health research. Thus, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) implemented a Sex and Gender-based Analysis (SGBA) framework recommending the inclusion of SGBA in project proposals in 2010 and then mandating the incorporation of SGBA into grant proposals in 2019. To examine whether this mandate resulted in increased mention of sex or gender in funded research abstracts, we searched the publicly available database of grant abstracts funded by CIHR to analyze the percentage of abstracts that mentioned sex or gender of the population to be studied. To better understand broader health equity issues we also examined whether the funded grant abstracts mentioned either female-specific health research or research within the 2S/LGBTQ+ community. ResultsWe categorized a total of 8,964 Project and Operating grant abstracts awarded from 2009- 2020 based on their study of female-specific or a 2S/LGBTQ+ populations or their mention of sex or gender. Overall, under 3% of grant abstracts funded by CIHR explicitly mentioned sex and/or gender, as 1.94% of grant abstracts mentioned sex, and 0.66% mentioned gender. As one of the goals of SGBA is to inform on health equity and understudied populations with respect to SGBA, we also found that 5.92% of grant abstracts mentioned female-specific outcomes, and 0.35% of grant abstracts focused on the 2S/LGBTQ+ community. ConclusionsAlthough there was an increased number of funded grants with abstracts that mentioned sex and 2S/LGBTQ+ health across time, these increases were less than 2% between 2009 to 2020. The percentage of funded grants with abstracts mentioning female-specific health or gender differences did not change significantly over time. The percentage of funding dollars allocated to grants in which the abstracts mentioned sex or gender also did not change substantially from 2009-2020, with grant abstracts mentioning sex or female-specific research increasing by 1.26% and 3.47% respectively, funding allocated to research mentioning gender decreasing by 0.49% and no change for 2S/LGBTQ+-specific health. Our findings suggest more work needs to be done to ensure the public can evaluate what populations will be examined with the funded research with respect to sex and gender to advance awareness and health equity in research. HighlightsO_LIThe percentage of funded grants in which the abstracts mentioned sex or gender in health research remained largely unchanged from 2009 to 2020 with the largest increase of 1.57% for those mentioning sex. C_LIO_LITotal funding amounts for grants that mentioned sex or gender in the abstract stagnated or declined from 2009 to 2020. C_LIO_LIThe percentage of funded grants in which the abstracts focusing on female-specific health did not change across 2009-2020, but the percentage of funding dollars increased by 3.47%. C_LIO_LIThe percentage of grants in which the abstracts mentioned 2S/LGBTQ+-specific health more than tripled across 2009-2020 but remained less than 1% of all funded grants. C_LI

scientific communication and education↗