Understanding and Predicting Population Response to Anthropogenic Disturbance: Current Approaches and Novel Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective conservation of biodiversity depends on the successful management of wildlife populations and their habitats. Successful management, in turn, depends on our ability to understand and accurately forecast how populations and communities respond to human-induced changes in their environments. However, quantifying how these stressors impact population dynamics remains challenging. Another significant hurdle at this interface is determining which quantitative approach(es) are most appropriate given data types, constraints and the intended purpose. Here, we provide a cross-taxa overview of key methodological approaches (e.g., matrix population models) and model elements (e.g., energetics) that are currently used to model the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on wildlife populations. Specifically, we discuss how these modelling approaches differ in their key assumptions, in their structure and complexity, in the questions they are best poised to address and in their data requirements. Our intention is to help overcome some of the methodological biases that might persist across taxonomic specialisations, identify new opportunities to address existing modelling challenges and improve scientific understanding of the direct and indirect impacts of anthropogenic disturbance. We guide users through the identification of appropriate model configurations for different management purposes, while also suggesting key priorities for model development and integration.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".