‘Euclimatch': an R package for climate matching with Euclidean distance metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate matching, a tool for predicting non‐native species survival in target (recipient) regions, is commonly used in invasive species frameworks such as horizon scanning and screening‐level risk assessment protocols. Screening‐level risk assessments often require the analysis of many species with limited resources, and climate matching can be advantageous to identify a reduced number of species for more detailed analyses. Additionally, risk screening may require examination of non‐native species' source pools where species occurrence records are not used in model training data. In these instances, climate matching is an effective method for assessing the survival of non‐native species or their source pools in a target region and has practical advantages over species distribution models. We introduce the R package ‘Euclimatch' for quantitative climate matching with the Euclidean distance algorithm Climatch. The package provides tools for creating a streamlined data‐agnostic climate‐matching workflow. First, climate data are extracted for species occurrence records or regions. Second, climate match is modelled between two regions as a similarity score per grid cell or summarized across a target region. Third, visualizations of the climate match model outputs are created. We demonstrate the use of the ‘Euclimatch' package with the climate match of two popular aquarium trade species and a region‐to‐region analysis. We also demonstrate differences in results between Euclidean distance metric standardization methods when incorporating climate‐change projections. The scale of each example is global, under historical and projected climates. ‘Euclimatch' provides a scripting interface for Euclidean climate matching for the screening assessment of non‐native species or regions under any climatic conditions. ‘Euclimatch' can be downloaded from the comprehensive R archive network (CRAN).
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.055 |
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".