MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133408598

Application of multivariate techniques in conservation planning frameworks

2007· other· en· W7133408598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Linke, Matthew Watts, Carissa J. Klein, R C Bailey, Hugh P Possingham

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsHeuristicsOrdinationBiodiversityMultivariate analysisMultidimensional scalingBiodiversity conservation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last few years systematic conservation planning has gained greater focus in freshwater ecology. As most conservation plans target multiple biodiversity features, this is inherently a multivariate problem. Apart from the use of multivariate modeling techniques to estimate taxa distributions, we present three applications of classification and ordination techniques in a conservation framework. Highly unique sites - thus of high conservation value - can be identified using the multivariate distance to a group centroid or their nearest neighbors. Systematic conservation planning algorithms, such as bootstrapped heuristics or simulated annealing, deliver multiple solutions to meet conservation targets. Cluster analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling help to select complementary conservation plans out of a pool of possible solutions. When taxa or other biodiversity features cannot be extrapolated across the landscape, multivariate environmental similarity patterns are linked directly to species patterns to create environmental surrogates that can be used for spatial prioritisation. We will demonstrate how these three approaches can enhance applied conservation planning schemes using invertebrate data from Victoria, Australia and the Yukon Territory, Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.447
Teacher spread0.368 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUNE (Research UNE)French-language works237,207