Optimal restoration of wildlife habitat in landscapes fragmented by resource extraction: a network flow modeling approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non‐renewable resource extraction contributes greatly to degradation of wildlife habitats in boreal landscapes. In western Canada, oil and gas exploration and extraction have left a dense network of linear disturbances (seismic lines) and abandoned well pads that have fragmented boreal forest. Among multiple ecological effects, these disturbances have increased predator access to the preferred habitat of some wildlife taxa, most notably boreal woodland caribou, resulting in population declines. Restoration of seismic lines and abandoned well pads is a critical activity to improve the recovery of woodland caribou populations. We present a linear programming model that optimally allocates restoration efforts to maximize the access of caribou to nearby undisturbed habitat in a fragmented landscape. We applied the model to examine restoration scenarios in the Cold Lake First Nations area in northeastern Alberta, Canada, which includes caribou habitat but also areas of active oil and gas extraction. The model depicts the landscape as a network of interconnected habitat patches and combines three network flow sub‐problems. The first sub‐problem enforces the spatial connectivity of the remaining network of unrestored sites. The second sub‐problem maximizes access to suitable habitat from the restored locations and the third sub‐problem ensures the allocation of restoration activities in as few spatially contiguous restoration projects as possible. The approach is generalizable and applicable to assist restoration planning in other resource extraction regions and for other taxa.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".