MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025411580 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00303

Good Practices for Species Distribution Modeling of Deep-Sea Corals and Sponges for Resource Management: Data Collection, Analysis, Validation, and Communication

2020· article· en· W3025411580 on OpenAlexaff
Arliss J. Winship, James T. Thorson, M. Elizabeth Clarke, Heather M. Coleman, Bryan Costa, Samuel E. Georgian, David J. Gillett, Arnaud Grüss, Mark J. Henderson, Thomas F. Hourigan, David D. Huff, Nissa Kreidler, Jodi L. Pirtle, John V. Olson, Matthew Poti, Christopher N. Rooper, Michael F. Sigler, T. Shay Viehman, Curt E. Whitmire

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsData collectionContext (archaeology)Spatial analysisSampling (signal processing)Leverage (statistics)Computer scienceInferenceData scienceScale (ratio)Resource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementEcologyData miningGeographyEnvironmental scienceCartographyMachine learningRemote sensingStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource managers in the United States and worldwide are tasked with identifying and mitigating trade-offs between human activities in the deep sea (e.g., fishing, energy development, and mining) and their impacts on habitat-forming invertebrates, including deep-sea corals and sponges (DSCS). Related management decisions require information about where DSCS occur and in what densities. Species distribution modeling (SDM) provides a cost-effective means of identifying potential DSCS habitat over large areas to inform these management decisions and data collection. Here we describe good practices for DSCS SDM, especially in the context of data collection and management applications. Managers typically need information regarding DSCS encounter probabilities, densities, and sizes, defined at sub-regional to basin-wide scales and validated using subsequent, targeted data collections. To realistically achieve these goals, analysts should integrate available data sources in SDMs including fine-scale visual sampling and broad-scale resource surveys (e.g., fisheries trawl surveys), include environmental predictor variables representing multiple spatial scales, model residual spatial autocorrelation, and quantify prediction uncertainty. When possible, models fitted to presence-absence and density data are preferred over models fitted only to presence data, which are difficult to validate and can confound estimated probability of occurrence or density with sampling effort. Ensembles of models can provide robust predictions, while multi-species models leverage information across taxa and facilitate community inference. To facilitate the use of models by managers, predictions should be expressed in units that are widely understood and validated at an appropriate spatial scale using a sampling design that provides strong statistical inference. We present three case studies for the Pacific Ocean that illustrate good practices with respect to data collection, modeling, and validation; these case studies demonstrate it is possible to implement our good practices in real-world settings.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.217
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.217
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.273
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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207