MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981891960 · doi:10.4095/305899

Mind the scale! Modeling at multiple scales to predict the distribution of sediment grain size for use in benthic habitat mapping

2017· report· en· W2981891960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Misiuk, Vincent Lecours

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneScale (ratio)SedimentHabitatBenthic habitatEnvironmental scienceDistribution (mathematics)EcologyGeographyGeologyOceanographyCartographyMathematicsGeomorphologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sediment grain size is an important habitat-defining parameter for many benthic species. Grain size distribution is affected by a number of oceanographic and sedimentological processes that operate at a variety of scales. Modeled predictions of sediment grain size can aid in benthic habitat mapping, yet the scale of processes is seldom considered in modeling, despite mounting evidence indicating the scale-dependent nature of these processes. The consideration of spatial scale can increase predictive accuracy of distribution models, and aid in understanding of the processes that drive distributions. Sediment grain size data from 98 grab samples collected from around Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada were used to train distribution models of mud, sand, and gravel fractions for subsequent use in habitat mapping and sediment classifications. Sixteen predictor variables derived from multibeam echosounding data were resampled at eight different resolutions (using the calculate terrain variable then average result over n x n window method; Dolan, 2012), which were tested for statistical importance in predicting mud, sand, and gravel grain size fraction distributions. Optimal resolutions were determined for each predictor variable, which were subsequently used to train compositional distribution models of mud, sand, and gravel grain size fractions in a Boosted Regression Tree model, using a methodology similar to that of Diesing (2015). Results demonstrated that the default multibeam data resolution (5 m) was often not the optimal choice for predictor variables, with coarser resolutions often explaining more statistical deviance. This reinforces the importance of considering or testing multiple spatial scales in distribution modeling. Identifying variable-specific scales aided in understanding the drivers of sediment grain size distribution in the area around Qikiqtarjuaq, and resulted in a high 10-fold cross-validated predictive accuracy (Spearman correlations of rho-mud=.772, rho-sand=.712, rho-gravel=.578). Predictions of mud, sand, and gravel grain size fractions were subsequently combined into a Folk (1954) grain size classification, and were used in species distribution models to support conservation and management of marine resource development around Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→