MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1969945708 · doi:10.1139/f2012-096

Applying time series models with spatial correlation to identify the scale of variation in habitat metrics related to threatened coho salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>) in the Pacific Northwest

2012· article· en· W1969945708 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric J. Ward, George R. Pess, Kara Anlauf‐Dunn, Chris E. Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncorhynchusAbiotic componentSampling (signal processing)HabitatThreatened speciesEnvironmental scienceEcologyScale (ratio)Spatial ecologySpatial variabilityFisheryGeographyStatisticsMathematicsCartographyBiologyComputer scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trend analyses are common in the analysis of fisheries data, yet the majority of them ignore either observation error or spatial correlation. In this analysis, we applied a novel hierarchical Bayesian state-space time series model with spatial correlation to a 12-year data set of habitat variables related to coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ) in coastal Oregon, USA. This model allowed us to estimate the degree of spatial correlation separately for each habitat variable and the importance of observation error relative to environmental stochasticity. This framework allows us to identify variables that would benefit from additional sampling and variables where sampling could be reduced. Of the eight variables included in our analysis, we found three metrics related to habitat quality correlated at large spatial scales (gradient, fine sediment, shade cover). Variables with higher observation error (pools, active channel width, fine sediment) could be made more precise with more repeat visits. Our spatio-temporal model is flexible and extendable to virtually any spatially explicit monitoring data set, even with large amounts of missing data and no repeated observations. Potential extensions include fisheries catch data, abiotic indicators, invasive species, or species of conservation concern.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→