A neural network approach to selecting indicators for a sustainable ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of indicators for monitoring the natural environment to ensure the ecological sustainability of areas under stress is problematic and prone to bias. Further, because of limitations in the resources available for data collection, such indicators should be selected carefully and their number confined to the minimum required to effectively monitor the system under study. Statistical techniques have traditionally been used to help select indicators, but often data lack the requirements of valid statistical analyses: minimal noise, variables linearly separable, variables able to be assigned numerical values, and high dimensionality. In this study, an alternate robust technique, artificial neural networks, is used to examine ecosystem data in multidimensional space and to select the minimum number of measured indicators that have the greatest weight in maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. The case study involves selecting indicators for ensuring the completion of ecologically sustainable army training conducted in a mixed grass prairie ecosystem. A neural network model was created that reduced the number of required measured indicators from 62 to 12, while minimizing researcher bias. Key words: ecological sustainability indicators, neural networks, military training.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".