Representing a large region with few sites: The Quality Index approach for field studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many environmental studies require the characterization of a large geographical region using a range of representative sites amenable to intensive study. A systematic approach to selecting study areas can help ensure that an adequate range of the variables of interest is captured. We present a novel method of selecting study sites representing a larger region, in which the region is divided into subregions, which are characterized with relevant independent variables, and displayed in mathematical variable space. Potential study sites are also displayed this way, and selected to cover the range in variables present in the region. The coverage of sites is assessed with the Quality Index, which compares the range and standard deviation of variables among the sites to that of the larger region, and prioritizes sites that are well-distributed ( i.e. not clumped) in variable space. We illustrate the method with a case study examining relationships between agricultural land use, physiography and stream phosphorus (P) export, in which we selected several variables representing agricultural P inputs and landscape susceptibility to P loss. A geographic area of 110,000 km 2 was represented with 11 study sites with good coverage of four variables representing agricultural P inputs and transport mechanisms taken from commonly-available geospatial datasets. We use a genetic algorithm to select 11 sites with the highest possible QI and compare these, post-hoc, to our sites. This approach reduces subjectivity in site selection, considers practical constraints and easily allows for site reselection if necessary. This site selection approach can easily be adapted to different landscapes and study goals, as we provide an algorithm and computer code to reproduce our approach elsewhere.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".