MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962525154 · doi:10.1111/ddi.12947

Combining data from field surveys and archaeological records to predict the distribution of culturally important trees

2019· article· en· W2962525154 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jordan Benner, Anders Knudby, Julie K. Nielsen, Meg A. Krawchuk, Ken Lertzman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndigenousGeographyCarvingDistribution (mathematics)LoggingSpecies distributionRange (aeronautics)Archaeological recordEcologyField (mathematics)ArchaeologyHabitatBiologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Indigenous communities involved in conservation planning require spatial datasets depicting the distribution of culturally important species. However, accessing datasets on the location of these species can be challenging, particularly when the current distribution no longer reflects areas with the full range of suitable growing conditions because of past logging. We test whether using occurrence data from community‐based field surveys and archaeological records in species distribution models can help predict the distribution of monumental western redcedar trees ( Thuja plicata )—large, high‐quality trees suitable for cultural purposes such as carving dug‐out canoes, totem poles and traditional houses. This species is critically important to indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest of North America, but trees suitable for traditional carving and building are diminishing in abundance due to logging. Location Our analysis covers the spatial extent of the traditional territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation, which encompasses a portion of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, Canada. Methods We built and compared species distribution models using the machine learning program, Maxent, based on occurrence data from field surveys and archaeological records of culturally modified trees. Results Our findings highlight similarities and differences between the predictions from these species distribution models. When validating these models against occurrences from an independent dataset, the archaeological record model performs better than the field survey model. These findings may arise because the independent dataset was collected on an unlogged island—an environment that aligns more closely with the historic forest conditions revealed by the archaeological records than the current distribution revealed by the field surveys. Main conclusions We demonstrate and discuss the utility of using archaeological data in species distribution modelling and conservation planning when the target species is associated with shifting environmental baselines, data limitations and an important cultural resource.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207