MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929318588 · doi:10.1111/cobi.13325

Using cumulative human‐impact models to reveal global threat patterns for seahorses

2019· article· en· W2929318588 on OpenAlexaff
Xiong Zhang, Amanda C. J. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsGeographyBiologyEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding threats acting on marine organisms and their conservation status is vital but challenging given a paucity of data. We studied the cumulative human impact (CHI) on and conservation status of seahorses (Hippocampus spp.)-a genus of rare and data-poor marine fishes. With expert knowledge and relevant spatial data sets, we built linear-additive models to assess and map the CHI of 12 anthropogenic stressors on 42 seahorse species. We examined the utility of indices of estimated impact (impact of each stressor and CHI) in predicting conservation status for species with random forest (RF) models. The CHI values for threatened species were significantly higher than those for nonthreatened species (category based on International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List). We derived high-accuracy RF models (87% and 96%) that predicted that 5 of the 17 data-deficient species were threatened. Demersal fishing practices with high bycatch and pollution were the best predictors of threat category. Major threat epicenters were in China, Southeast Asia, and Europe. Our results and maps of CHI may help guide global seahorse conservation and indicate that modeling and mapping human impacts can reveal threat patterns and conservation status for data-poor species. We found that for exploring threat patterns of focal species, species-level CHI models are better than existing ecosystem-level CHI models.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.155 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207