Predicting the distributions of under‐recorded Odonata using species distribution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Absences in distributional data may result either from the true absence of a species or from a false absence due to lack of recording effort. I use general linear models (GLMs) and species distribution models (SDMs) to investigate this problem in North American Odonata and present a potential solution. 2. I use multi‐model selection methods based on Akaike’s information criterion to evaluate the ability of water–energy variables, human population density, and recording effort to explain patterns of odonate diversity in the USA and Canada using GLMs. Water–energy variables explain a large proportion of the variance in odonate diversity, but the residuals of these models are significantly related to recorder effort. 3. I then create SDMs for 176 species that are found solely in the USA and Canada using model averaging of eight different methods. These give predictions of hypothetical true distributions of each of the 176 species based on climate variables, which I compare with observed distributions to identify areas where potential under‐recording may occur. 4. Under‐recording appears to be highest in northern Canada, Alaska, and Quebec, as well as the interior of the USA. The proportion of predicted species that have been observed is related to recorder effort and population density. Maps for individual species have been made available online ( http://www.odonatacentral.org/ ) to facilitate recording in the future. 5. This analysis has illustrated a problem with current odonate recording in the form of unbalanced recorder effort. However, the SDM approach also provides the solution, targeting recorder effort in such a way as to maximise returns from limited resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".