MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247549727 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26815

Species distribution modeling of deep sea sponges in the North Pacific Ocean.

2018· preprint· en· W4247549727 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Davidson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpongeBathymetryHabitatOceanographySpecies distributionTerrainEcosystemClimate changeEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyPhysical geographyGeologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of deep-sea species and their ecosystems is limited due to the inaccessibility of the areas and the prohibitive cost of conducting large-scale field studies. My graduate research has used predictive modeling methods to map hexactinellid sponge habitat extent in the North Pacific, as well as climate-induced changes in oceanic dissolved oxygen levels and how this will impact sponges. Results from a MaxEnt model based on sponge presence data from the eastern Pacific, in conjunction with bathymetric terrain derivatives, closely mapped existing sponge habitats, and suggested a depth threshold around 3000 meters below which sponges are not found. Early results suggest that oxygen is another important predictor of sponge habitat, including this and a variety of other environmental predictors (e.g. based on ocean chemistry, physics and biology) and different model scales would improve model accuracy. The long-term goal of this research is to apply climate prediction data to the predictive modeling in order to assess the sensitivity of deep-sea sponge habitat to global climate changes.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207