MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial Analysis in Ecology

2016· other· en· W1486009484 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial analysisAutocorrelationSpatial ecologyEcologyMacroecologyCommon spatial patternSampling (signal processing)Mesoscale meteorologySpatial correlationGeographyTemporal scalesSpatial dependenceStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsRemote sensingBiogeographyBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first step in understanding ecological processes is to identify their spatial patterns. Ecological data are usually characterized by spatial structures and as such, they are said to be spatially autocorrelated. Spatial autocorrelation refers to the pattern where the values of a quantitative variable are more similar at nearby locations than expected by chance alone. Most ecological data exhibit some degree of spatial autocorrelation that is modulated by the spatial sampling design used to record the data and the method used to analyze them. Furthermore, ecological data can be the end result of several processes operating at different spatial scales. In such cases, ecological data are a composite of large‐scale trends at the macroscale, gradients and patchiness at mesoscale, and random patterns at local and microscales. Hence, to estimate the magnitude and the extent of spatial autocorrelation, various spatial statistics can be used. Here, we review the spatial statistics most commonly used by ecologists.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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