Level III Ecoregions of EPA Region 10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ecoregions by epa region were extracted from the seamless national shapefile ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type quality and quantity of environmental resources they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research assessment management and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components these general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies state agencies and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas the approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of patterns of biotic and abiotic phenomena including geology physiography vegetation climate soils land use wildlife and hydrology the relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another a roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels for ecological regions level i is the coarsest level dividing north america into 15 ecological regions level ii divides the continent into 52 regions commission for environmental cooperation working group 1997 at level iii the continental united states contains 104 regions whereas the conterminous united states has 84 u s environmental protection agency 2005 level iv ecoregions are further subdivisions of level iii ecoregions methods used to define the ecoregions are explained in omernik 1995 2004 omernik and others 2000 and gallant and others 1989 literature cited commission for environmental cooperation working group 1997 ecological regions of north america toward a common perspective montreal commission for environmental cooperation 71 p gallant a l whittier t r larsen d p omernik j m and hughes r m 1989 regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources corvallis oregon u s environmental protection agency epa 600 3 89 060 152p omernik j m 1995 ecoregions a framework for environmental management in davis w s and simon t p eds biological assessment and criteria tools for water resource planning and decision making boca raton florida lewis publishers p 49 62 omernik j m chapman s s lillie r a and dumke r t 2000 ecoregions of wisconsin transactions of the wisconsin academy of science arts and letters v 88 p 77 103 omernik j m 2004 perspectives on the nature and definitions of ecological regions environmental management v 34 supplement 1 p s27 s38 comments and questions regarding ecoregions should be addressed to glenn griffith usgs c o us epa 200 sw 35th street corvallis or 97333 541 754 4465 email griffith glenn epa gov alternate james omernik usgs c o us epa 200 sw 35th street corvallis or 97333 541 754 4458 email omernik james epa gov
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.123 | 0.041 |
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".