Applications of spatial statistical network models to stream data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Streams and rivers host a significant portion of Earth's biodiversity and provide important ecosystem services for human populations. Accurate information regarding the status and trends of stream resources is vital for their effective conservation and management. Most statistical techniques applied to data measured on stream networks were developed for terrestrial applications and are not optimized for streams. A new class of spatial statistical model, based on valid covariance structures for stream networks, can be used with many common types of stream data (e.g., water quality attributes, habitat conditions, biological surveys) through application of appropriate distributions (e.g., Gaussian, binomial, Poisson). The spatial statistical network models account for spatial autocorrelation (i.e., nonindependence) among measurements, which allows their application to databases with clustered measurement locations. Large amounts of stream data exist in many areas where spatial statistical analyses could be used to develop novel insights, improve predictions at unsampled sites, and aid in the design of efficient monitoring strategies at relatively low cost. We review the topic of spatial autocorrelation and its effects on statistical inference, demonstrate the use of spatial statistics with stream datasets relevant to common research and management questions, and discuss additional applications and development potential for spatial statistics on stream networks. Free software for implementing the spatial statistical network models has been developed that enables custom applications with many stream databases. This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".