MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796138906 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.047

A generic method to assess species exploratory potential under climate change

2018· article· en· W2796138906 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Massiot‐Granier, Géraldine Lassalle, Pedro R. Almeida, Miran Aprahamian, Martín Castonguay, Hilaire Drouineau, Emili García‐Berthou, Pascal Laffaille, Alain Lechêne, Mario Lepage, Karin E. Limburg, Jérémy Lobry, Éric Rochard, Kenneth A. Rose, Juliette Tison‐Rosebery, Thibaud Rougier, John R. Waldman, Karen Wilson, Patrick Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersInstitut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementClimatologyEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate, by altering the spatio-temporal distributions of suitable habitats, leads to modifications in a multitude of species ranges. In recent years, the ability of species to adjust to changing climatic conditions is of growing concern. In the present study, a generic trait-based method to assess species exploratory potential under climate change is proposed. “Exploratory potential” is here defined as the capacity of species to initiate the act of leaving their current habitats and to reach new ones outside of their range, at a rate fast enough to keep pace with climate change. The presented method is based on the calculation of the Exploratory Potential Index (EPI), a metric that combines several life-history traits into a single numeric value. Both coefficients and variables of this composite metric are flexible. They depend on the set of species under consideration through a two-step participatory expert-based procedure. A panel of experts on the species’ biology, ecology and conservation is first to be constituted. Then, experts are separately consulted to validate the variables to be integrated in the composite EPI index and are asked to rank the importance of these variables relative to each other following an Analytic Hierarchy Process. Coefficients in the EPI index and scores are given a credibility distribution using a Bayesian inference model. Anadromous species are chosen as a first application case. Scripts and raw survey data are made available to readers to ease applications to other species groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2280.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207