Evaluating Critical Uncertainty Thresholds in a Spatial Model of Forest Pest Invasion Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pest risk maps can provide useful decision support in invasive species management, but most do not adequately consider the uncertainty associated with predicted risk values. This study explores how increased uncertainty in a risk model's numeric assumptions might affect the resultant risk map. We used a spatial stochastic model, integrating components for entry, establishment, and spread, to estimate the risks of invasion and their variation across a two-dimensional landscape for Sirex noctilio, a nonnative woodwasp recently detected in the United States and Canada. Here, we present a sensitivity analysis of the mapped risk estimates to variation in key model parameters. The tested parameter values were sampled from symmetric uniform distributions defined by a series of nested bounds (+/-5%, ... , +/-40%) around the parameters' initial values. The results suggest that the maximum annual spread distance, which governs long-distance dispersal, was by far the most sensitive parameter. At +/-15% or larger variability bound increments for this parameter, there were noteworthy shifts in map risk values, but no other parameter had a major effect, even at wider bounds of variation. The methodology presented here is generic and can be used to assess the impact of uncertainties on the stability of pest risk maps as well as to identify geographic areas for which management decisions can be made confidently, regardless of uncertainty.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".