Predicting species distribution from fishers’ local ecological knowledge: a new alternative for data-poor management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many developing countries lack information to manage their endangered species, urging the need for affordable and reliable information. We used Bayesian hierarchical spatial models, with oceanographic variables, to predict the distribution range of Epinephelus marginatus, the dusky grouper, for the entire Southwest Atlantic. We ran a model using scientific information gathered from the literature and another using information gathered from fishers on species presence or absence. In both models, temperature was an important determinant of species occurrence. The predicted occurrence of the dusky grouper overlapped widely (Schoener’s D = 0.71; Warren’s I = 0.91) between the models, despite small differences on the southern and northern extremes of the distribution. These results suggest that basic information provided by fishers on species occurrence in their area can be reliable enough to predict species occurrence over large scales and can be potentially useful for marine spatial planning. Fishers’ knowledge may be an even more viable alternative to data collection than what was previously thought, for countries that both struggle with financial limitations and have urgent conservation needs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".