Peer Review #1 of "Advances in global sensitivity analyses of demographic-based species distribution models to address uncertainties in dynamic landscapes (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing a rigorous understanding of multiple global threats to species persistence requires the use of integrated modeling methods that capture the processes that influence species distributions.Species distribution models (SDMs) coupled with population dynamics models can incorporate relationships between changing environments and demographics and are increasingly used to quantify relative extinction risks associated with climate and land-use changes.Despite their appeal, uncertainties associated with complex models can undermine their usefulness for advancing predictive ecology and informing conservation management decisions.We developed a computationally-efficient and freely available tool (GRIP 2.0) that implements and automates a global sensitivity analysis of coupled SDM-population dynamics models for comparing the relative influence of demographic parameters and habitat attributes on predicted extinction risk.Advances over previous global sensitivity analyses include the ability to vary habitat suitability, as well as the amount and configuration of suitable habitat in spatially-explicit suitability maps of real and simulated landscapes.Using GRIP 2.0, we carried out a multi-model global sensitivity analysis of a coupled SDM-population dynamics model of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in Mount Rainier National Park as a case study and quantified the relative influence of input parameters and their interactions on model predictions.Our results differed from the one-at-time analyses used in the original study, and we found that the most influential parameters included the total amount of suitable habitat within the landscape, survival rates, and effects of a prevalent disease, white pine blister rust.Strong interactions between habitat amount and survival rates of older trees indicated the importance of habitat in mediating the negative influences of white pine blister rust.Our results underscore the importance of considering habitat attributes along with demographic parameters in sensitivity routines.GRIP 2.0 is an important
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 | 0.019 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.211 | 0.109 |
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".