Linking species distribution models with structured expert elicitation for predicting management effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective biodiversity conservation requires robust and transparent prioritization of management actions. However, this is often hampered by a lack of spatially‐explicit data on habitat variables and empirical data on the effect of management actions. Although approaches exist that integrate structured expert elicitation (SEE) with species distribution models (SDMs) to encode species responses across habitat gradients, difficulties remain in predicting management outcomes under different settings, at a region‐wide scale when key habitat covariates are not spatially explicit. Therefore, we developed an approach to integrate SDMs with SEE to capture expert understanding of likely outcomes of management actions for individual frog species, and use this to spatially predict the effect of management actions. We demonstrate our approach across approximately 4000 wetlands in greater Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. As a measure of management effectiveness, we used the change in predicted probability of occurrence of seven frog species at wetlands 10 years after conservation actions are implemented (or not implemented). Management effect was elicited from experts under six scenarios. Individual expert estimates were aggregated using generalized linear models that were then used to spatially predict expected management effects, and a measure of uncertainty in the prediction, at all wetlands. Predicted management effect was strongly influenced by species initial probability of occurrence, with enhancing aquatic and surrounding vegetation an effective action for most species. We discuss practical challenges and recommend solutions in the integration of SDMs and SEE for the spatial prediction of management effect.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".