Advances in Understanding Landscape Influences on Freshwater Habitats and Biological Assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.—Over the past decade, numerous studies have identified correlative relationships between aquatic biota and human activities at landscape scales. In addition to demonstrating the pervasive effects of these activities on aquatic biota, these findings have encouraged researchers to suggest that predictive relationships between human activities and aquatic biota could be used to enhance diagnostic power of biological assessments, predict future changes in species distributions, and inform land-use planning. However, to achieve these important goals, descriptions of human activities will need to become more detailed than the simple land use/land cover classifications frequently used. Our purpose is to highlight four sources of human activity data (existing geographic information system layers, census data, remotely sensed images, and visual landscape surveys) that can be used to increase the level of detail with which the human environment is described. Strengths and weaknesses of each data source are discussed and methods for adapting those data to aquatic studies are described by drawing on experiences from studies in the agricultural landscapes of southern Manitoba and southwestern Ontario, Canada. Based on the observations and lessons learned from our previous experiences, we make recommendations for how researchers can identify and apply the data sources that best meet their needs. We also discuss challenges and possible solutions for applying the described data sources as well as for improving data availability in the future. Moreover, we encourage aquatic researchers to allot more time to detailed description of human activities because we believe this to be an effective approach to improving our ability to predict the effects of human activity and thus better assist decision makers in protecting aquatic ecosystems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".