Reconstructing community relationships: the impact of sampling error, ordination approach, and gradient length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Effectively summarizing complex community relationships is an important feature in studies such as biodiversity, global change, and invasion ecology. The reliability of such community summaries depends on the degree of sampling variability that is present in the data, the structure of the data, and the choice of ordination method, but the relative importance of these factors is not understood. We compared the validity of results from different ordination methods by applying five levels of sampling error to a simulated coenoplane model at two gradient lengths using two types of data (abundance and presence–absence). The multivariate methods we compared were correspondence analysis (CA), detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), non‐metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS), principal component analysis (PCA) and principal coordinates analysis (PCoA). Our results showed CA and PCA using presence–absence data were the most successful methods regardless of sampling error and gradient length, closely followed by the other methods using presence–absence data. With abundance data, PCA and CA were the most successful approaches with the short and long gradients, respectively. Approaches based on PCoA and NMDS using abundance data did not perform well regardless of the choice of distance measure used in the analysis. Both of these methods, along with the PCA using abundance data, were strongly affected by the longer gradient, leading to more distorted results.
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 | 0.033 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".