Factors affecting the presence of Arctic charr in streams based on a jittered binary genetic programming model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic charr is one of the fish species most sensitive to climate change but studies on their freshwater habitat preferences are limited, especially in the fluvial environment. Machine learning methods offer automatic and objective models for ecohydrological processes based on observed data. However, i) the number of ecological records is often much smaller than hydrological observations, and ii) ecological measurements over the long-term are costly. Consequently, ecohydrological datasets are scarce and imbalanced. To address these problems, we propose jittered binary genetic programming (JBGP) to detect the most dominant ecohydrological parameters affecting the occurrence of Arctic charr across tributaries within the large subarctic Teno River catchment, in northernmost Finland and Norway. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of the proposed model and compared its performance with that of classic genetic programming (GP), decision tree (DT) and state-of-the-art jittered-DT methods. The JBGP achieves the highest total classification accuracy of 90% and a Heidke skill score of 78%, showing its superiority over its counterparts. Our results showed that the dominant factors contributing to the presence of Arctic charr in Teno River tributaries include i) a higher density of macroinvertebrates, ii) a lower percentage of mires in the catchment and iii) a milder stream channel slope.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".