Effects of cost surface uncertainty on current density estimates from circuit theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conservation practitioners are often interested in developing land use plans that increase landscape connectivity, which is defined as the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches. Landscape connectivity is often estimated with a cost surface that indicates the varying costs experienced by an organism in moving across a landscape. True, or absolute costs are rarely known however, and therefore assigning costs to different landscape elements is often a challenge in creating cost surface maps. As such, we consider it important to understand the sensitivity of connectivity estimates to uncertainty in cost estimates. METHODS: We used simulated landscapes to test the sensitivity of current density estimates from circuit theory to varying relative cost values, fragmentation, and number of cost classes (i.e., thematic resolution). Current density is proportional to the probability of use during a random walk. Using Circuitscape software, we simulated electrical current between pairs of nodes to create current density maps. We then measured the correlation of the current density values across scenarios. RESULTS: In general, we found that cost values were highly correlated across scenarios with different cost weights (mean correlation ranged from 0.87 to 0.92). Changing the spatial configuration of landscape elements by varying the degree of fragmentation reduced correlation in current density across maps. We also found that correlations were more variable when the range of cost values in a map was high. DISCUSSION: The low sensitivity of current density estimates to relative cost weights suggests that the measure may be reliable for land use applications even when there is uncertainty about absolute cost values, provided that the user has the costs correctly ranked. This finding should facilitate the use of cost surfaces by conservation practitioners interested in estimating connectivity and planning linkages and corridors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".