Presence-only fisheries bycatch data produce biased species distribution predictions for Alcyonacean corals on British Columbia’s continental shelf and slope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sedentary benthic species such as Alcyonacea corals form critical habitat for fishes and invertebrates. Assessing anthropogenic risks to these organisms requires unbiased, species distribution models (SDMs) that attempt to map probabilities of coral presence in relation to bio-physical ocean characteristics; however, in deep-water settings, the accuracy of SDMs is highly variable and dependent on spatial and taxonomic resolution. Here we investigated how data and model types affect SDM predictions of Alcyonacea probability of presence. We compared predictions from generalized additive models (GAMs) fitted to presence–absence observations over a stratified-random survey design with predictions from maximum entropy models (Maxent) fitted to presence-only bycatch records from commercial fisheries. We use a simulation analysis to show that both model types (i.e., GAM or Maxent) using presence-only bycatch data produced biased estimates of species distribution, while both model types using presence–absence data from a stratified random survey design produced unbiased estimates of species distribution. Additionally, the maxent model fit using presence-only bycatch data produced biased estimates of performance metrics (AUC and TSS) that were overly optimistic. This study demonstrates a need for presence–absence data collected using a robust survey sampling design to fit SDMs that will better inform marine protected area placement while minimizing unnecessary economic losses, such as forgone fishing yield, due to sub-optimal placement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".