MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311500695 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116855

A bi-level model for state and county aquatic invasive species prevention decisions

2022· article· en· W4311500695 on OpenAlexaff
Robert G. Haight, Denys Yemshanov, Szu-Yu Kao, Nicholas B. D. Phelps, Amy C. Kinsley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationPlannerPlan (archaeology)WatercraftResource (disambiguation)State (computer science)Operations researchEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recreational boats are important vectors of spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) among waterbodies of the United States. To limit AIS spread, state and county agencies fund watercraft inspection and decontamination stations at lake access points. We present a bi-level model for determining how a state planner can efficiently allocate inspection resources to county managers, who independently decide where to locate inspection stations. In our formulation, each county manager determines a set of optimal plans for the locations of inspection stations under various resource constraints. Each plan maximizes inspections of risky boats that may carry AIS from infested to uninfested lakes within the county. Then, the state planner selects the set of county plans (i.e., one plan for each county) that maximizes the number of risky boats inspected throughout the state subject to a statewide resource constraint. We apply the model using information from Minnesota, USA, including the infestation status of 9182 lakes and estimates of annual numbers of boat movements from infested to uninfested lakes. Comparison of solutions of the bi-level model with solutions of a state-level model where a state planner selects lakes for inspection stations statewide shows that when state and county objectives are not aligned, the loss in efficiency at the state-level can be substantial.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207