Landscape context importance for predicting forest transition success in central Panama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Naturally recovering secondary forests are frequently re-cleared before they can recover to pre-disturbance conditions. Identifying landscape factors associated with persistence success will help planning cost-efficient and effective forest restoration. Objectives The ability of secondary forest to persist is an often undervalued requisite for long-term ecosystem restoration. Here we identify the landscape context for naturally regenerated forests to persist through time within central Panama. Methods We developed a random forest classification (RFC) calibration method to identify areas with high (≥ 90%) and low (< 90%) likelihood of forest persistence success based on their spatial relation with nine landscape explanatory variables. Results The RFC model discriminated between secondary forests areas that persisted and did not persisted with an error rate of 2%. By tuning, we obtained a precision of 0.94 (94%) in the validation test. The two most important explanatory variables involved in the persistence dynamic were elevation and distance to the nearest rural area. Naturally regenerated forests lasted longer in patches that were closer to both Gatun and Alajuela Lakes as to protected areas, but further from rural communities, roads, urban areas and in patches with higher elevation and steeper slopes. Conclusion By tracking remote sensed, landscape context metrics of easy collection, we developed a prediction map of central Panama areas with high (≥ 90%) and low (> 90%) probability of natural forest regeneration and persistence success within the next 30 years. This map represents a basis for management decisions and future investigations for effective, long-term forest-landscape restoration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".