Addressing the risks of invasive plants through spatial predictive modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this dissertation is to extend the use of spatial predictive modelling for use by biosecurity agencies to help prevent the introductions of new and emerging invasive plants (i.e., pests). A critical review of international and national policy instruments found that they did not effectively articulate how spatial predictive modelling could be incorporated into the biosecurity toolbox. To determine how spatial predictive modelling could be extended I modelled the potential distribution of Tamarix and Lythrum salicaria in Prairie Canada using a genetic algorithm. New seasonal growth data was used to interpolate a growing degree-day’s risk surface for L. salicaria. Models were developed using suites of predictive variables as well as different data partitioning methods and evaluated using different performance measures. Expert evaluation was found to important in final model selection. The results indicated that both invasive plants have yet to reach their potential distribution in Prairie Canada. The spatial models can be used to direct risk-based surveillance efforts and to support biosecurity policy decisions. The results of this dissertation conclude that spatial predictive modelling is an informative tool that needs to be incorporated into the biosecurity toolbox. A phytosanitary standard is proposed to guide toolbox development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".