Assessing spatiotemporal change in coral reef social-ecological systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coral reef resilience is eroding at multiple spatial scales globally, with broad implications for coastal communities, and is thus a critical challenge for managing marine social-ecological systems (SESs). Many researchers believe that external stressors will cause key coral reefs to die by the end of the 21st century, virtually eliminating essential ecological and societal benefits. Here, we propose the use of resilience-based approaches to understand the dynamics of coral reef SESs and subsequent drivers of coral reef decline. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of these methods, not only for tracking environmental change, but also for providing warning in advance of transitions, possibly allowing time for management interventions. The flexibility and utility of these methods make them ideal for assessing complex systems; however, they have not been used to study aquatic ecosystem dynamics at the global scale. Here, we evaluate these methods for examining spatiotemporal change in coral reef SESs across the global seascape and assess the subsequent impacts on coral reef resilience. We found that while univariate indicators failed to provide clear signals, multivariate resilience-based approaches effectively captured coral reef SES dynamics, unveiling distinctive patterns of variation throughout the global coral reef seascape. Additionally, our findings highlight global spatiotemporal variation, indicating patterns of degraded resilience. This degradation was reflected regionally, particularly in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean SESs. These results underscore the utility of resilience-based approaches in assessing environmental change in SESs, detecting spatiotemporal variation at the global and regional scales, and facilitating more effective monitoring and management of coral reef SESs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".