Stability and reliability of regional cumulative impact mapping: A Canadian Pacific case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cumulative impact mapping is a commonly applied spatial representation of the impacts of human activities on the ocean. This spatial model has been applied at varying scales around the world, in part due to its ability to visually communicate complicated information in a simple way. The application of the model to decision-making processes requires an understanding of the reliability and stability of its outputs. This paper represents both an updated regional application in Pacific Canada and an evaluation of the tool over two iterations, 2015 and 2023. The regional application utilised higher model resolution and new and improved data inputs including 38 habitats and 46 activities across five sectors. High impact hotspots were found around major population centres and ports, as well as in fishing and shipping areas along the continental shelf. Commercial fishing, shipping, and climate change (sea surface temperature change) remained the major drivers of cumulative impacts in the region, and cumulative impacts per unit area continued to be highest in kelp and seagrass. Results suggest evidence of decreased impacts where improved protection for sponge reefs were implemented but show an overall increase in cumulative impacts for the region. Results showed consistency and reliability in the location of cumulative impact hotspots. Refinements in data quality and resolution of spatial data inputs contributed towards increasing the spatial precision of hot spot areas identified. Confidence in the cumulative impact mapping outputs and applications for marine spatial planning, marine protected area designation and management, research, and decision support are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".