Code for: Optimizing ecological surveys for conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Conservation decisions must be made with limited funding and incomplete information. Ecological surveys can help reduce uncertainty and, in turn, potentially lead to better management decisions. However, conducting surveys can reduce funds available for implementing management actions and, in turn, can potentially lead to worse conservation outcomes. 2. Here we develop a value of information framework to evaluate and optimize survey plans. Our framework evaluates survey plans based on their ability to improve how likely resulting protected area systems are to secure species of interest, and accounts for survey and land acquisition costs. Using an example of eight imperiled plant species in Middlesex County (Ontario, Canada), we assessed our framework against conventional approaches for designing survey plans that involve selecting places with (i) maximal geographic coverage, (ii) diverse environmental conditions, (iii) highly uncertain information, (iv) high imperiled species richness, and (v) low protected area establishment costs. 3. We found that optimized survey plans could improve the protected area system by, on average, 57.52% (0.21 S.D.) (up to 105.25%) over conventional survey approaches. These optimized plans could also improve the protected area system by, on average, 19.91% (up to 32.37%) over simply prioritizing based on existing information. Survey plans designed using conventional approaches, in many cases, led to a worse protected area system than simply using existing information. Such conventional approaches performed the worst when they allocated a large percentage of the available budget to data collection. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our findings demonstrate that conventional approaches for designing ecological surveys can impede conservation efforts by squandering funds on data that have little chance of improving decision making. Indeed, conventional approaches for designing surveys had the poorest performance under limited budgets, which are typical in real world planning exercises. We recommend that conservation practitioners carefully consider how data collection efforts can potentially improve conservation decisions, and also the costs associated with data collection. By applying the principles of value of information, our framework enables conservation practitioners to cost-effectively collect data in places that will maximize conservation outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.032 |
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".