Comparing spatiotemporal species distribution models: A case study of a Scotian Shelf sea cucumber (<i>Cucumaria frondosa</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerous spatiotemporal species distribution modeling frameworks are now available to the ecological practitioner. This study compared three such frameworks accessible in the R programming language: generalized additive models with spatiotemporal smooths as implemented by mgcv, spatiotemporal generalized linear mixed models based on nearest neighbor Gaussian processes as implemented by starve, and spatiotemporal generalized linear mixed models based on the stochastic partial differential equations approach as implemented by sdmTMB. The primary focus was to compare the inferences obtained from applying these frameworks to the case study of the orange‐footed sea cucumber, Cucumaria frondosa, on the Scotian Shelf off Nova Scotia, Canada. Each model was fit to catch data (2000–2019) from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's annual Research Vessel and Snow Crab surveys. Environmental covariates were sourced from high‐resolution data layers, including physical oceanographic, bathymetric, and seafloor morphometric datasets. The three models captured variability in sea cucumber distribution that would have been overlooked without a spatiotemporal approach. Although their predictions were similar, including within C. frondosa spatial reserves, the models provided different inferences regarding covariate effects. This suggests that while practitioners primarily interested in mapping species distributions need only apply the most familiar framework, those most concerned with identifying predictive environmental covariates may benefit from comparing the output from multiple approaches. Employing multiple approaches can also serve as a validation technique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".