Integrating disparate survey data in species distribution models demonstrate the need for robust model evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine spatial planning and conservation initiatives benefit from an understanding of species distributions across larger geographic areas than are often sampled by any one survey. Here, we test whether the integration of disparate survey data can improve habitat predictions across a region not well sampled by a single survey using Dungeness crab ( Metacarcinus magister) from British Columbia as a case study. We assemble data from dive, trawl, and baited-trap surveys to generate six candidate generalized linear mixed-effect models with spatial random fields. To compare single-survey and integrated models, we evaluate predictive performance with spatially buffered leave-one-out cross-validation and independently with two novel approaches using fisheries catch data. We find improved predictive performance and reduced uncertainty when integrating data from surveys that suffer from small sample size, low detectability, or limited spatial coverage. We demonstrate the importance of robust model evaluation when integrating data and predicting to unsampled locations. In addition, we highlight the need for careful consideration of sampling biases and model assumptions when integrating data to reduce the risk of prediction errors.
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 | 0.079 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".