Ecological prediction at macroscales using big data: Does sampling design matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although ecosystems respond to global change at regional to continental scales (i.e., macroscales), model predictions of ecosystem responses often rely on data from targeted monitoring of a small proportion of sampled ecosystems within a particular geographic area. In this study, we examined how the sampling strategy used to collect data for such models influences predictive performance. We subsampled a large and spatially extensive data set to investigate how macroscale sampling strategy affects prediction of ecosystem characteristics in 6,784 lakes across a 1.8‐million‐km 2 area. We estimated model predictive performance for different subsets of the data set to mimic three common sampling strategies for collecting observations of ecosystem characteristics: random sampling design, stratified random sampling design, and targeted sampling. We found that sampling strategy influenced model predictive performance such that (1) stratified random sampling designs did not improve predictive performance compared to simple random sampling designs and (2) although one of the scenarios that mimicked targeted (non‐random) sampling had the poorest performing predictive models, the other targeted sampling scenarios resulted in models with similar predictive performance to that of the random sampling scenarios. Our results suggest that although potential biases in data sets from some forms of targeted sampling may limit predictive performance, compiling existing spatially extensive data sets can result in models with good predictive performance that may inform a wide range of science questions and policy goals related to global change.
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 | 0.095 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".