Correction: Model-Based Assessment of Estuary Ecosystem Health Using the Latent Health Factor Index, with Application to the Richibucto Estuary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to quantitatively assess ecological health is of great interest to those tasked with monitoring and conserving ecosystems. For decades, biomonitoring research and policies have relied on multimetric health indices of various forms. Although indices are numbers, many are constructed based on qualitative procedures, thus limiting the quantitative rigor of the practical interpretations of such indices. The statistical modeling approach to construct the latent health factor index (LHFI) was recently developed. With ecological data that otherwise are used to construct conventional multimetric indices, the LHFI framework expresses such data in a rigorous quantitative model, integrating qualitative features of ecosystem health and preconceived ecological relationships among such features. This hierarchical modeling approach allows unified statistical inference of health for observed sites (along with prediction of health for partially observed sites, if desired) and of the relevance of ecological drivers, all accompanied by formal uncertainty statements from a single, integrated analysis. Thus far, the LHFI approach has been demonstrated and validated in a freshwater context. We adapt this approach to modeling estuarine health, and illustrate it on the previously unassessed system in Richibucto in New Brunswick, Canada, where active oyster farming is a potential stressor through its effects on sediment properties. Field data correspond to health metrics that constitute the popular AZTI marine biotic index and the infaunal trophic index, as well as abiotic predictors preconceived to influence biota. Our paper is the first to construct a scientifically sensible model that rigorously identifies the collective explanatory capacity of salinity, distance downstream, channel depth, and silt-clay content-all regarded a priori as qualitatively important abiotic drivers-towards site health in the Richibucto ecosystem. This suggests the potential effectiveness of the LHFI approach for assessing not only freshwater systems but aquatic ecosystems in general.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".