MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808025614 · doi:10.1002/ecy.2403

Black swans in space: modeling spatiotemporal processes with extremes

2018· article· en· W2808025614 on OpenAlexaff
Sean C. Anderson, Eric J. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceInferencePopulationBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityGaussian processMultivariate statisticsEcologyMountain pine beetleGeographyGaussianArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ecological systems, extremes can happen in time, such as population crashes, or in space, such as rapid range contractions. However, current methods for joint inference about temporal and spatial dynamics (e.g., spatiotemporal modeling with Gaussian random fields) may perform poorly when underlying processes include extreme events. Here we introduce a model that allows for extremes to occur simultaneously in time and space. Our model is a Bayesian predictive-process GLMM (generalized linear mixed-effects model) that uses a multivariate-t distribution to describe spatial random effects. The approach is easily implemented with our flexible R package glmmfields. First, using simulated data, we demonstrate the ability to recapture spatiotemporal extremes, and explore the consequences of fitting models that ignore such extremes. Second, we predict tree mortality from mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks in the U.S. Pacific Northwest over the last 16 yr. We show that our approach provides more accurate and precise predictions compared to traditional spatiotemporal models when extremes are present. Our R package makes these models accessible to a wide range of ecologists and scientists in other disciplines interested in fitting spatiotemporal GLMMs, with and without extremes.

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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207