User‐friendly and evidence‐based tool to evaluate probability of eradication of aquatic non‐indigenous species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The gap between practitioners and conservation or environmental management science is difficult to bridge. Managers sometimes use limited scientific information in their decision‐making process, mainly because they have little time to review primary literature before making a decision. Making data readily available to managers is expected to improve the overall efficiency of management interventions. Here, we present an approach to develop user‐friendly applications for evidence‐based management and illustrate the concept by presenting a simple computer program designed to evaluate the probability of eradication of aquatic non‐indigenous species. We conducted a review of case studies that attempted to control aquatic non‐indigenous species and used a statistical model to relate the outcome (eradication or non‐eradication) to characteristics of the populations and interventions conducted. Based on a few key variables, the model returned accurate probabilities of eradication as evaluated with a receiver operating characteristic curve and jackknife and cross‐validation procedures. We packaged the statistical model in a user‐friendly computer program that can be used by managers to (i) rapidly calculate the probability of success of a planned intervention with associated uncertainty, (ii) compare the success probabilities of different possible interventions and (iii) prioritize what information should be collected to increase the reliability of estimates. Synthesis and applications . Our decision support tool is easy to implement, statistically flexible and could be used for any type of conservation or management intervention, given a sufficient number of case studies available in the literature. We recommend that scientists develop such tools whenever they conduct reviews of effectiveness of intervention. This is likely to result in greater use of data by practitioners, increased reliability of cost–benefit analyses and an overall increase in efficiency in conservation and environmental management.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".