MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083023959 · doi:10.3897/oneeco.5.e55881

An Ecological Approach for Mapping Socio-Economic Data in Support of Ecosystems Analysis: Examples in Mapping Canada’s Forest Ecumene

2020· article· en· W3083023959 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. P. Eddy, Madison Muggridge, Robert LeBlanc, Joanne Osmond, Chelsea Kean, Erica Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Ecosystem · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceMemorial University of NewfoundlandNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeospatial analysisGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPopulationEcosystemCensusRelation (database)Ecosystem managementHabitatEcosystem servicesDistribution (mathematics)Natural (archaeology)Data scienceRegional scienceCartographyEcologyComputer scienceData miningSociologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating socio-economic dimensions in ecosystems analysis and management is becoming increasingly important, particularly from a mapping standpoint. A key challenge with such integration is reconciling different geospatial representations based on census and administrative frameworks with natural ecosystems boundaries.This article presents one method for addressing this challenge by mapping an information rich 'ecumene'. In this approach, communities are mapped as human habitats using natural boundaries as opposed to administrative-type boundaries, integrated with authoritative socio-economic data. To illustrate the benefits of this approach, two example applications are provided that: 1) map and estimate the population of the 'forest ecumene' of Canada, and 2) map labour force distribution patterns associated with the forest sector and its relation to forest areas in Canada. Benefits and limitations of this approach are discussed, from which a number of priority areas for future research are identified.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne EcosystemSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207