Mapping Arctic clam abundance using multiple datasets, models, and a spatially explicit accuracy assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species distribution models are commonly used in the marine environment as management tools. The high cost of collecting marine data for modelling makes them finite, especially in remote locations. Underwater image datasets from multiple surveys were leveraged to model the presence–absence and abundance of Arctic soft-shell clam (Mya spp.) to support the management of a local small-scale fishery in Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, Canada. These models were combined to predict Mya abundance, conditional on presence throughout the study area. Results suggested that water depth was the primary environmental factor limiting Mya habitat suitability, yet seabed topography and substrate characteristics influence their abundance within suitable habitat. Ten-fold cross-validation and spatial leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO CV) were used to assess the accuracy of combined predictions and to test whether this was inflated by the spatial autocorrelation of transect sample data. Results demonstrated that four different measures of predictive accuracy were substantially inflated due to spatial autocorrelation, and the spatial LOO CV results were therefore adopted as the best estimates of performance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".