Exploring spatial non-stationarity of fisheries survey data using geographically weighted regression (GWR): an example from the Northwest Atlantic
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
Abstract Windle, M. J. S., Rose, G. A., Devillers, R., and Fortin, M-J. 2010. Exploring spatial non-stationarity of fisheries survey data using geographically weighted regression (GWR): an example from the Northwest Atlantic. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 145–154. Analyses of fisheries data have traditionally been performed under the implicit assumption that ecological relationships do not vary within management areas (i.e. assuming spatially stationary processes). We question this assumption using a local modelling technique, geographically weighted regression (GWR), not previously used in fisheries analyses. Outputs of GWR are compared with those of global logistic regression and generalized additive models (GAMs) in predicting the distribution of northern cod off Newfoundland, Canada, based on environmental (temperature and distance from shore) and biological factors (snow crab and northern shrimp) from 2001. Results from the GWR models explained significantly more variability than the global logistic and GAM regressions, as shown by goodness-of-fit tests and a reduction in the spatial autocorrelation of model residuals. GWR results revealed spatial regions in the relationships between cod and explanatory variables and that the significance and direction of these relationships varied locally. A k-means cluster analysis based on GWR t-values was used to delineate distinct zones of species–environment relationships. The advantages and limitations of GWR are discussed in terms of potential application to fisheries ecology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it