Modeling the impact of landscape types on the distribution of stream fish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modifications of the landscape adjoining streams perturb their local habitat and their biological diversity, but little quantitative information is available on land cover classes that influence the fish species individually. Data collected from 191 sites in the Adour–Garonne Basin (France) were analyzed to assess the effects of land cover on the distribution of fish species. A multimodel approach was carried out to predict fish species using land cover classes and to define the most important classes applying a hierarchical filtering based on artificial neural network method and sensitivity analysis. Firstly, using three single-class models, a selection of the land cover subclasses contributing the most was carried out for each fish species and each class. Secondly, multiclass models were built with all the previously selected subclasses to predict each species (n-selected subclass model). Finally, the percentages of contribution for artificial, agricultural, and forest areas obtained for the different model architectures (three class, n-selected subclass, and global multiclass models) were compared. The majority of the distribution of fish species was correctly predicted by the single-class models, and different land cover subclasses have been selected depending on the species. Using the n-selected subclass models, the predictive performances were globally better than those obtained with other multiclass models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".