Evaluating the Sampling Design of a Long-Term Community-Based Estuary Monitoring Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based monitoring programs (CBMPs) are a cost-effective option to collect the long-term data required to effectively monitor estuaries. Data quality concerns have caused some CBMP datasets, which could fill knowledge gaps for aquatic ecosystems, to go unused. The Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP) is a CBMP that has collected littoral nekton assemblage data from estuaries in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence since 2003. Concerns with the CAMP sampling design (station placement and numbers) have prevented decision-makers from using the data to inform estuary health assessments. This study tested if CAMP’s sampling design that accommodates volunteer participation provides similar information as a scientific sampling approach. Six CAMP stations and six stations selected using a stratified random design were sampled at ten estuaries. A permutational-MANOVA revealed nekton assemblages were generally not significantly different between the two sampling designs. The current six CAMP stations are sufficient to detect the larger differences in species abundances that may indicate differences in estuary condition. The predicted increase in precision (2%) with twelve stations is not substantive enough to warrant an increased sampling effort. CAMP’s scientific utility is not limited by station selection bias or numbers. Furthermore, well-designed CBMPs can produce comparable data to scientific studies.
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 | 0.145 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".