MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209009256 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4728559

hydroweight: Inverse distance-weighted rasters and landscape attributes

2021· article· en· W3209009256 on OpenAlexaff
Brian W. Kielstra, Robert Mackereth, Stephanie Melles, Erik J. S. Emilson

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverseGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer visionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental scientists often want to understand how upland features like forest cover affect receiving waterbodies (e.g., water quality). Upland areas are characterized by deriving various landscape attributes (e.g., % forest cover in catchment). However, this approach often assumes that the influence of upland features on receiving waterbodies is independent of their proximity to the waterbodies. This may not adequately describe important spatial patterns within the upland area, for example, if there was higher forest cover near the waterbody and lower forest cover farther away. The <em>R</em> statistical software package <strong><em>hydroweight</em></strong> helps to account for these patterns. <strong><em>hydroweight</em></strong> calculates landscape attributes based on distances to waterbodies — areas nearby have more influence than those farther away (i.e., inverse distance-weighting). We implement various scenarios described by Peterson <em>et al.</em> (2011) that include different types of straight-line and flow-path distances to waterbodies. We add to the literature of current implementations (<em>IDW-Plus</em> in <em>ArcGIS</em> software and <em>rdwplus</em> in <em>R</em> statistical software through <em>GRASS GIS</em> spatial software). However, <strong><em>hydroweight</em></strong> provides a set of simple and flexible functions to accommodate a wider set of scenarios and statistics (e.g., numerical and categorical raster and polygon inputs) in <em>R</em> using <em>WhiteboxTools</em> spatial software. Please use hydroweight Github for most up-to-date version. Citations Lindsay, J.B. (2016). Whitebox GAT: A case study in geomorphometric analysis. Computers &amp; Geosciences, 95: 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.07.003 Peterson, E. E., Sheldon, F., Darnell, R., Bunn, S. E., &amp; Harch, B. D. (2011). A comparison of spatially explicit landscape representation methods and their relationship to stream condition. Freshwater Biology, 56(3), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02507.x Peterson, E. E. &amp; Pearse, A. R. (2017). IDW‐Plus: An ArcGIS Toolset for calculating spatially explicit watershed attributes for survey sites. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 53(5): 1241–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12558 Pearse A., Heron G., &amp; Peterson E. (2019). rdwplus: An Implementation of IDW-PLUS. R package version 0.1.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rdwplus Wu, Q. (2020). whitebox: ‘WhiteboxTools’ R Frontend. R package version 1.4.0. https://github.com/giswqs/whiteboxR

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1550.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.168 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207