Australia's terrestrial industrial footprint and ecological intactness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These datasets represent a Human Industrial Footprint (HIF) index map and an Ecological Intactness Index (EII) map for Australia circa 2020-2024. The datasets are distributed in raster format (.tif) and have a spatial resolution of 100 m, mapped on an Australian Albers Equal Area projection (EPSG:3577). The HIF was created by incorporating 16 nationally relevant pressure layers, also part of the dataset. The pressures used to compute the HIF were 1) intensive land uses, 2) buildings, 3) mining and quarrying, 4) human population density, 5) croplands, 6) pasturelands, 7) forestry plantations, 8) reservoirs and large dams, 9) farm dams, 10) roads, 11) railways, 12) energy transmission lines, 13) oil pipelines, 14) gas pipelines, 15) hiking trails, and 16) navigable waterways. Each pressure layer was assigned a relative score between 0 and 10 to make them comparable. The scored (scaled) pressure layers were then summed to obtain the final HIF map. The HIF was used to derive the Ecological Intactness Index (EII). The EII is calculated using the HIF, with the intactness index value for each cell parameterised to: a) be proportional to habitat area when there is no habitat fragmentation; b) decline mono-tonically as fragmentation increases, and be sensitive to both the number of nearby patches and the separation between patches, and (c) to be proportional to habitat quality for a given total area of habitat and degree of fragmentation. In the pressure layer folder, native and modified pasturelands are merged in the "pastures" pressure layer and paved and unpaved roads are in the "roads" layer. Acknowledgements This research was funded by The Wilderness Society. Contact Further queries regarding these datasets can be directed to Ruben Venegas (r.venegas@uq.edu.au) and James Watson (james.watson@uq.edu.au).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".