Determining Decision Thresholds and Evaluating Indicators when Conservation Status is Measured as a Continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Categorization of the status of populations, species, and ecosystems underpins most conservation activities. Status is often based on how a system's current indicator value (e.g., change in abundance) relates to some threshold of conservation concern. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves can be used to quantify the statistical reliability of indicators of conservation status and evaluate trade-offs between correct (true positive) and incorrect (false positive) classifications across a range of decision thresholds. However, ROC curves assume a discrete, binary relationship between an indicator and the conservation status it is meant to track, which is a simplification of the more realistic continuum of conservation status, and may limit the applicability of ROC curves in conservation science. We describe a modified ROC curve that treats conservation status as a continuum rather than a discrete state. We explored the influence of this continuum and typical sources of variation in abundance that can lead to classification errors (i.e., random variation and measurement error) on the true and false positive rates corresponding to varying decision thresholds and the reliability of change in abundance as an indicator of conservation status, respectively. We applied our modified ROC approach to an indicator of endangerment in Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) (i.e., percent decline in geometric mean abundance) and an indicator of marine ecosystem structure and function (i.e., detritivore biomass). Failure to treat conservation status as a continuum when choosing thresholds for indicators resulted in the misidentification of trade-offs between true and false positive rates and the overestimation of an indicator's reliability. We argue for treating conservation status as a continuum when ROC curves are used to evaluate decision thresholds in indicators for the assessment of conservation status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".