Human interfaces and urban change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the first time in human history, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas, and the patterns of suburbanization and urban sprawl once characteristic of North America are now present globally (Obaid 2007). As conservation biologists seek to prioritize conservation efforts worldwide, urbanization and agricultural development emerge as two of the most extensive processes that threaten biodiversity. Suburban and rural sprawl are significant drivers of forest fragmentation and biodiversity loss (e.g., Murphy 1988; Radeloff et al. 2005). Data on human impacts is often averaged across political boundaries rather than biogeographic boundaries, making it challenging to use existing data sets on human demography in ecological studies and relate human population change to the changes in populations of other species. Remotely sensed data can make major contributions to mapping human impacts in ecologically relevant ways. For example, Ricketts and Imhoff (2003) assigned conservation priorities (based on species richness and endemism) for the United States and Canada using several different types of remotely sensed data. For mapping urban cover, they used the map of “city lights at night” from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (Imhoff et al. 1997) to classify land as urbanized or not urbanized. For mapping agricultural cover, they used the USGS North America Seasonal Land Cover map (Loveland et al. 2000), derived from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), lumping five categories to create an agricultural land class. For ecological data, they used a compilation of ecoregion boundaries combined with range maps for over 20,000 species in eight taxa (birds, mammals, butterflies, amphibians, reptiles, land snails, tiger beetles, and vascular plants; Ricketts et al. 1999). Analyzing these data, Ricketts and Imhoff (2003) identified a strong correlation between species richness and urbanization. Of the 110 ecoregions studied, 18 ranked in the top third for both urbanization and biodiversity (species richness, endemism, or both); some of the ecoregions identified as priorities were not identified by a previous biodiversity assessment that did not include the remotely sensed mapping of urbanization (Ricketts et al. 1999).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.003 |
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".