On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the usage and measurement of “landscape connectivity” in 33 recent studies. Connectivity is defined as the degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement of organisms among resource patches. However, connectivity is actually used in a variety of ways in the literature. This has led to confusion and lack of clarity related to (1) function vs structure, (2) patch isolation vs landscape connectivity and, (3) corridors vs connectivity. We suggest the term connectivity should be reserved for its original purpose. We highlight nine studies; these include modeling studies that actually measured connectivity in accordance with the definition, and empirical studies that measured key components of connectivity. We found that measurements of connectivity provide results that can be interpreted as recommending habitat fragmentation to enhance landscape connectivity. We discuss reasons for this misleading conclusion, and suggest a new way of quantifying connectivity, which avoids this problem. We also recommend a method for reducing sampling intensity in landscape‐scale empirical studies of connectivity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".