Assessing recovery of spectacled eiders using a Bayesian decision analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing species status and making classification decisions under the Endangered Species Act is a critical step towards effective species conservation. However, classification decisions are liable to two errors: i) failing to classify a species as threatened or endangered that should be classified (underprotection), or ii) classifying a species as threatened or endangered when it is not warranted (overprotection). Recent surveys indicate threatened spectacled eider populations are increasing in western Alaska, prompting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider the federal listing status. There are multiple criteria set for assessing spectacled eider status, and here we focus on the abundance and decision analysis criteria. We estimated population metrics using state-space models for Alaskan breeding populations of spectacled eiders. We projected abundance over 50 years using posterior estimates of abundance and process variation to estimate the probability of quasi-extinction. The decision analysis maps the risk of quasi-extinction to the loss associated with making a misclassification error (i.e., underprotection) through a loss function. Our results indicate that the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta breeding population in western Alaska has met the recovery criteria but the Arctic Coastal Plain population in northern Alaska has not. The methods employed here provide an example of accounting for uncertainty and incorporating value judgements in such a way that the decision-makers may understand the risk of committing a misclassification error. Incorporating the abundance threshold and decision analysis in the reclassification criteria greatly increases the transparency and defensibility of the classification decision, a critical aspect for making effective decisions about species management and conservation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".