A multiscale approach to mapping seabed sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benthic habitat maps, including maps of seabed sediments, have become critical spatial-decision support tools for marine ecological management and conservation. Despite the increasing recognition that environmental variables should be considered at multiple spatial scales, variables used in habitat mapping are often implemented at a single scale. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for using environmental variables at multiple scales for modelling and mapping seabed sediments. Sixteen environmental variables were derived from multibeam echosounder data collected near Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada at eight spatial scales ranging from 5 to 275 m, and were tested as predictor variables for modelling seabed sediment distributions. Using grain size data obtained from grab samples, we tested which scales of each predictor variable contributed most to sediment models. Results showed that the default scale was often not the best. Out of 129 potential scale-dependent variables, 11 were selected to model the additive log-ratio of mud and sand at five different scales, and 15 were selected to model the additive log-ratio of gravel and sand, also at five different scales. Boosted Regression Tree models that explained between 46.4 and 56.3% of statistical deviance produced multiscale predictions of mud, sand, and gravel that were correlated with cross-validated test data (Spearman's ρmud = 0.77, ρsand = 0.71, ρgravel = 0.58). Predictions of individual size fractions were classified to produce a map of seabed sediments that is useful for marine spatial planning. Based on the scale-dependence of variables in this study, we concluded that spatial scale consideration is at least as important as variable selection in seabed mapping.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".