Detecting spatial hot spots in landscape ecology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hot spots are typically locations of abundant phenomena. In ecology, hot spots are often detected with a spatially global threshold, where a value for a given observation is compared with all values in a data set. When spatial relationships are important, spatially local definitions – those that compare the value for a given observation with locations in the vicinity, or the neighbourhood of the observation – provide a more explicit consideration of space. Here we outline spatial methods for hot spot detection: kernel estimation and local measures of spatial autocorrelation. To demonstrate these approaches, hot spots are detected in landscape level data on the magnitude of mountain pine beetle infestations. Using kernel estimators, we explore how selection of the neighbourhood size (τ) and hot spot threshold impact hot spot detection. We found that as τ increases, hot spots are larger and fewer; as the hot spot threshold increases, hot spots become larger and more plentiful and hot spots will reflect coarser scale spatial processes. The impact of spatial neighbourhood definitions on the delineation of hot spots identified with local measures of spatial autocorrelation was also investigated. In general, the larger the spatial neighbourhood used for analysis, the larger the area, or greater the number of areas, identified as hot spots.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it