A multi-Criteria Wetland Suitability Index for Restoration across Ontario’s Mixedwood Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant wetland loss (~72%; 1.4 million hectares) in the Province of Ontario, Canada, has resulted in damage to important ecosystem services that mitigate the effects of global change. In response, major agencies have set goals to halt this loss and work to restore wetlands to varying degrees of function and area. To aid those agencies, this study was guided by four research questions: (i) Which physical and ecological landscape criteria represent high suitability for wetland reconstruction? (ii) Of common wetland suitability metrics, which are most important? (iii) Can a multi-criteria wetland suitability index (WSI) effectively locate high and low wetland suitability across the Ontario Mixedwood Plains Ecozone? (iv) How do best sites from the WSI compare and contrast to both inventories of presettlement wetlands and current existing wetlands? The WSI was created based on seven criteria, normalized from 0 (low suitability) to 10 (high suitability), and illustrated through a weighted composite raster. Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and importance determined from a scoping review of relevant literature, soil drainage had the greatest meaning and weight within the WSI (48.2%). The Getis-Ord Gi* index charted statistically significant “hot spots” and “cold spots” of wetland suitability. Last, the overlay analysis revealed greater similarity between high suitability sites and presettlement wetlands supporting the severity of historic wetland cannibalization. In sum, this transferable modeling approach to regional wetland restoration provides a prioritization tool for improving ecological connectivity, services, and resilience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".