Risk maps for targeting exotic plant pest detection programs in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, pest risk maps are used by the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey for spatial and temporal targeting of exotic plant pest detection programs. Methods are described to create standardized host distribution, climate and pathway risk maps for the top nationally ranked exotic pest targets. Two examples are provided to illustrate the risk mapping process: late wilt of corn (Harpophora maydis) and the giant African land snail (Achatina fulica). Host risk maps were made from county‐level crop census and USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis data, respectively. Climate risk maps were made using the North Carolina State University–USDA APHIS Plant Pest Forecasting System (NAPPFAST), which uses a web‐based graphical user interface to link climatic and geographic databases with interactive templates for biological modelling. Pathway risk maps were made using freight flow allocation data sets to move commodities from 7 world regions to 3162 US urban areas. A new aggregation technique based on the Pareto dominance principle was used to integrate maps of host abundance, climate and pathway risks into a single decision support product. The maps are publicly available online ( http://www.nappfast.org ). Key recommendations to improve the risk maps and their delivery systems are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".