Improved prediction of Canada lynx distribution through regional model transferability and data efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The application of species distribution models (SDMs) to areas outside of where a model was created allows informed decisions across large spatial scales, yet transferability remains a challenge in ecological modeling. We examined how regional variation in animal‐environment relationships influenced model transferability for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), with an additional conservation aim of modeling lynx habitat across the northwestern United States. Simultaneously, we explored the effect of sample size from GPS data on SDM model performance and transferability. We used data from three geographically distinct Canada lynx populations in Washington (n = 17 individuals), Montana (n = 66), and Wyoming (n = 10) from 1996 to 2015. We assessed regional variation in lynx‐environment relationships between these three populations using principal components analysis (PCA). We used ensemble modeling to develop SDMs for each population and all populations combined and assessed model prediction and transferability for each model scenario using withheld data and an extensive independent dataset (n = 650). Finally, we examined GPS data efficiency by testing models created with sample sizes of 5%–100% of the original datasets. PCA results indicated some differences in environmental characteristics between populations; models created from individual populations showed differential transferability based on the populations' similarity in PCA space. Despite population differences, a single model created from all populations performed as well, or better, than each individual population. Model performance was mostly insensitive to GPS sample size, with a plateau in predictive ability reached at ~30% of the total GPS dataset when initial sample size was large. Based on these results, we generated well‐validated spatial predictions of Canada lynx distribution across a large portion of the species' southern range, with precipitation and temperature the primary environmental predictors in the model. We also demonstrated substantial redundancy in our large GPS dataset, with predictive performance insensitive to sample sizes above 30% of the original.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".