MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117106493 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06301-0

National human footprint maps for Peru and Ecuador

2025· article· en· W7117106493 on OpenAlexaff
José Aragón-Osejo, Lenin Beltrán, J. Iglesias, Holger Cepeda Zambrano, Daniel Borja, Carlos Oñate, Francisco Fausto Charro Simbaña, Freddy Albeiro Castrillón Valencia, Karen Rodríguez De la Vera, Luis Poveda, Fernando Proaño, Lorena Parra, María José Sauma Chacón, William Llactayo, Tatiana Pequeño, Walter Huamani, German Marchand, Raúl Tinoco, Luis Angel Apaza Quispe, Alexs Arana, Anne Virnig, Patricia Huerta, Karla Jiménez, Pedro Tipula Tipula, Susana Rodríguez, Rodrigo Sierra, Andrew J. Hansen, Oscar Venter

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityLand coverFootprintEcological footprintPopulationLand usePopulation pressureSustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human Footprint (HF) maps score human pressures based on their influence and integrate them into a single spatial index to assess the naturalness of ecosystems. We produced a historical series of national HF maps for Peru and Ecuador for Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) reporting. These maps integrate pressures from built environments, land use/land cover (LULC-agriculture, pasture, tree plantations), roads and railways, population density, electrical infrastructure, oil and gas infrastructure, and mining. The dataset includes HF maps and individual pressure maps for Peru from 2012 to 2021, as well as for Ecuador for the years 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. These maps support the analysis of spatiotemporal patterns of human influence at national and subnational levels, enabling biodiversity monitoring, modelling, and conservation in these highly biodiverse countries.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207