MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176856469 · doi:10.3390/rs13132547

Characterizing Off-Highway Road Use with Remote-Sensing, Social Media and Crowd-Sourced Data: An Application to Grizzly Bear (Ursus Arctos) Habitat

2021· article· en· W3176856469 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean P. Kearney, Terrence A. Larsen, Tristan R.H. Goodbody, Nicholas C. Coops, Gordon B. Stenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadafRI ResearchShell Canada
KeywordsUrsusGrizzly BearsHabitatGeographyContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementGlobal Positioning SystemEnvironmental scienceCartographyEcologyComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characterizing roads is important for conservation since the relationship between road use and ecological impact can vary across species. However, road use is challenging to monitor due to limited data and high spatial-temporal variability, especially for unpaved roads, which often coincide with critical habitats. In this study, we developed and evaluated two methods to characterize off-highway road use across a large management area of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) habitat using: (1) a ‘network-based’ approach to connect human activity hotspots identified from social media posts and remotely detected disturbances and (2) an ‘image-based’ approach, in which we modeled road surface conditions and travel speed from high spatial resolution satellite imagery trained with crowd-sourced smartphone data. To assess the differences between these approaches and their utility for characterizing roads in the context of habitat integrity, we evaluated how behavioural patterns of global positioning system (GPS)-collared grizzly bears were related to road use characterized by these methods compared to (a) assuming all roads have equal human activity and (b) using a ‘reference’ road classification from a government database. The network- and image-based methods showed similar patterns of road use and grizzly bear response compared to the reference, and all three revealed nocturnal behaviour near high-use roads and better predicted grizzly bear habitat selection compared to assuming all roads had equal human activity. The network- and image-based methods show promise as cost-effective approaches to characterize road use for conservation applications where data is not available.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207