Predicting the occurrence of nonindigenous species using environmental and remotely sensed data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To manage or control nonindigenous species (NIS), we need to know where they are located in the landscape. However, many natural areas are large, making it unfeasible to inventory the entire area and necessitating surveys to be performed on smaller areas. Provided appropriate survey methods are used, probability of occurrence predictions and maps can be generated for the species and area of interest. The probability maps can then be used to direct further sampling for new populations or patches and to select populations to monitor for the degree of invasiveness and effect of management. NIS occurrence (presence or absence) data were collected during 2001 to 2003 using transects stratified by proximity to rights-of-way in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park. In this study, we evaluate the use of environmental and remotely sensed (LANDSAT Enhanced Thematic Mapper +) data, separately and combined, for developing probability maps of three target NIS occurrence. Canada thistle, dalmation toadflax, and timothy were chosen for this study because of their different dispersal mechanisms and frequencies, 5, 3, and 23%, respectively, in the surveyed area. Data were analyzed using generalized linear regression with logit link, and the best models were selected using Akaike's Information Criterion. Probability of occurrence maps were generated for each target species, and the accuracies of the predictions were assessed with validation data excluded from the model fitting. Frequencies of occurrence of the validation data were calculated and compared with predicted probabilities. Agreement between the observed and predicted probabilities was reasonably accurate and consistent for timothy and dalmation toadflax but less so for Canada thistle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".