MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967251060 · doi:10.5061/dryad.crjdfn391

Data from: Statistical stream temperature modelling with SSN and INLA: An introduction for conservation practitioners

2023· dataset· en· W6967251060 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBig Data and Digital Economy
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial analysisStatistical modelAutocorrelationSTREAMSData stream miningPreprocessorSpatial distributionData modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical stream temperature models can predict the fine-scale spatial distribution of water temperatures and guide species recovery and habitat restoration efforts. However, stream temperature modelling is complicated by spatial autocorrelation arising from non-independence data collected within dendritic networks. We used data from miniature sensors deployed in Canadian Rocky Mountain streams to develop and validate two statistical stream temperature modelling techniques that account for spatial autocorrelation. The first was based on spatial steam network models (SSNs) specifically developed to account for spatial autocorrelation in dendritic stream networks. The second used integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) that accounts for spatial autocorrelation but was not designed to address anisotropic stream network data. We evaluated the best-fitted SSN and INLA models using leave-one-out cross validation from the data collected along the stream network. Both modelling techniques had similar RMSE and MAE (near 1oC) and r2 (> 0.6) values, and proved flexible with respect to implementation; however, the SSN models required more preprocessing steps before incorporating spatially correlated random errors. We provide practical advice and open-access data and r-script to help non-experts develop statistical stream temperature models of their own.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADSame topicBig Data and Digital EconomyFrench-language works237,207