MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W55494061

Modeling and mapping in support of the Regional conservational Strategy Framework

2013· article· en· W55494061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theresa Burcsu, Thomas Albo, Joseph Bernert, Jennifer DiMiceli, James S. Kagan, Matthew D. Noone

Bibliographic record

VenuePDXScholar (Portland State University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessProcess management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to November 2010, when The Intertwine Alliance launched the Regional Conservation Strategy (RCS) and Biodiversity Guide (RBG) efforts for the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region, conservation priorities in the metropolitan region were identified at a broad regional scale that generally excluded urban areas (e.g., state conservation strategies and Willamette Synthesis); were regional but based solely on expert opinion (e.g., Natural Features); and consisted of localized priorities that abruptly ended at jurisdiction boundaries. The goal of the RCS was to fill in the gaps between broad and local scales of information related to conservation priorities. RCS members envisioned a data-driven approach that could add a regional perspective to local efforts and facilitate cross-scale cooperation toward protecting remaining valuable habitat in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region. Also, RCS members expected that the product would complement rather than replace local knowledge, by validating what we know and expanding to areas we know less well. In June 2011, INR completed an initial proof-of-concept product describing high value conservation areas in the Portland-Vancouver region. The product demonstrated a methodology that enabled stakeholder involvement while also being data-driven. In September 2012, we completed a second version of this product that is reported on in this document. While the product is considered complete at this time, it is expected and hoped that the models and data will be updated and improved upon into the future as more and better information becomes available so that the product functions as a "living work" rather than a one-time snapshot in time. Several key products resulted from the project: the High Value Habitat data describing high value terrestrial habitat within the metropolitan region, the Riparian Habitat data describing high value habitat adjacent to streams and rivers, and the high spatial resolution land cover data set describing land cover at a 5 m spatial resolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePDXScholar (Portland State University)Same topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207