MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241908116 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26752

What and where? Identifying high-risk aquatic invasive species and hotspots of suitable habitat in the Arctic

2018· preprint· en· W4241908116 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jesica Goldsmit, Christopher W. McKindsey, Philippe Archambault, Katie E. Howland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticHabitatBenthosEnvironmental scienceGlobal warmingClimate changeThe arcticBenthic zoneOceanographyGeographyEcologyFisheryBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk of aquatic invasive species (AIS) introductions in the Arctic is expected to increase with ongoing trends of greater shipping activity, resource exploitation, and climate warming in the region. We identified a suite of AIS (benthos, zooplankton and macroalgae) with the greatest likelihood of introduction and impact in the Canadian Arctic using the Canadian Marine Invasive Screening Tool. The top sixteen riskiest species (mainly benthic) were then modelled to predict the potential spatial distributions (habitat modelling using Maximum Entropy) at an Arctic scale. Modelling was conducted under present environmental conditions and under two future global warming scenarios (2050 and 2100). Results show that hotspots or regions where suitable habitat is more densely accumulated for modelled AIS are in the Hudson Complex, Chukchi / Eastern Bering Sea, and Barents / White Sea. Most taxonomic groups showed a trend for a positive poleward shift in the future, increasing from the present time to the end of the century. This approach will aid in the identification of present and future high-risk areas for AIS in response to global warming.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→