Toward a national <scp>eDNA</scp> strategy for the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) data make it possible to measure and monitor biodiversity at unprecedented resolution and scale. As use‐cases multiply and scientific consensus grows regarding the value of eDNA analysis, public agencies have an opportunity to decide how and where eDNA data fit into their mandates. Within the United States, many federal and state agencies are individually using eDNA data in various applications and developing relevant scientific expertise. A national strategy for eDNA implementation would capitalize on recent scientific developments, providing a common set of next‐generation tools for natural resource management and public health protection. Such a strategy would avoid patchwork and possibly inconsistent guidelines in different agencies, smoothing the way for efficient uptake of eDNA data in management. Because eDNA analysis is already in widespread use in both ocean and freshwater settings, we focus here on applications in these environments. However, we foresee the broad adoption of eDNA analysis to meet many resource management issues across the nation because the same tools have immediate terrestrial and aerial applications.
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 | 0.052 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".