MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405097139 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112932

Expert-assisted statistical learning techniques for assessing wetland conditions in urban landscapes

2024· article· en· W4405097139 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin J. Erratt, Sassan Mohammady, Tracy S. Lee, Vanessa A. Carney, K E Sanderson, Caroline L. Lesage, Felix Nwaishi, Irena F. Creed

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeographyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Urban wetlands decline rapidly, impacting ecosystem services. • Computer-based tools replace fieldwork for faster, large-scale assessments. • Statistical models reveal subtle changes in wetland conditions. • Hybrid models with human and machine input improve monitoring precision. • Hybrid models outperform single-method assessments. Wetlands are essential components within the socio-ecological framework of urban areas, providing a wide range of ecosystem services. However, increasing natural and anthropogenic stressors place significant pressure on these wetlands, threatening their ability to sustain these vital services. To effectively assess wetland condition and develop appropriate management strategies, robust monitoring tools are needed. Statistical learning techniques, such as machine learning, have been proposed as a promising approach to enhance the development of these wetland monitoring tools. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the pre-existing wetland assessment tool used in the City of Calgary—the Aquatic Condition Index (ACI). We compared ACI performance using three different approaches for selecting indicators: machine-only selection, expert-only selection, and a hybrid approach where humans selected the indicators, but the machine determined the relationships between the indicators and wetland conditions. Our results showed that hybrid approaches, combining human expertise with statistical learning, outperformed both machine-only and expert-only methods. We then examined whether the ACI could be transitioned from field- and computer-based indicators to fully computer-based indicators using the hybrid method of selecting indicators. Our findings revealed comparable results between the two methods, suggesting that a computer-based monitoring system could help overcome the time and budgetary constraints associated with field-based monitoring while also enabling the examination of larger geographical areas. This study underscores the importance of human expertise in guiding the statistical learning process, particularly in the selection of indicators that accurately represent wetland processes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207