A Framework and Software Tool to Support Collaborative Landscape Analysis: Fitting Square Pegs into Square Holes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For landscape models to be applied successfully in management situations, models must address appropriate questions, include relevant processes and interactions, be perceived as credible and involve people affected by decisions. We propose a framework for collaborative model building that can address these issues, and has its roots in adaptive management, computer‐supported collaborative work and landscape ecology. Models built through this framework integrate a variety of information sources, address relevant questions, and are customized for the particular landscape and policy environment under study. Participants are involved in the process from the start, and because their input is incorporated, they feel ownership of the resulting models, increasing the chance of model acceptance and application. There are two requirements for success: a tool that supports rapid model prototyping and modification, that makes a clear link between a conceptual and implemented model, and that has the ability to implement a wide range of model types; and a core team with skills in communication, research and analysis, and knowledge of ecology and forestry in addition to modelling. SELES (Spatially Explicit Landscape Event Simulator) is a tool for building and running models of landscape dynamics. It combines discrete event simulation with a spatial database and a relatively simple modelling language to allow rapid development of landscape simulations, and provides a high‐level means of specifying complex model behaviours ranging from management actions to natural disturbance and succession. We have applied our framework in several forest modelling projects in British Columbia, Canada. We have found that this framework increases the interest by local experts and decision‐makers to participate actively in the model building process. The workshop process and resulting models have efficiently provided insight into the dynamics of large landscapes over long time frames. The use of SELES has facilitated this process by providing a flexible, transparent environment in which models can be rapidly implemented and refined. As a result, model findings may be more readily incorporated into decision‐support systems designed to assist resource managers in making informed decisions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.069 | 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".