A new cost‐effective approach to survey ecological communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveying ecological communities often means the tedious work of collecting detailed information on each species within each sampling unit (e.g. trap, transect, quadrat). In this paper, we first argue that presence–absence and abundance data are the two extremes of a spectrum of data formats. By counting individuals of each species within a sampling unit until either a predefined (user‐defined) number of individuals is reached or all individuals of the species are counted, all intermediate cases can be generated. By independently correlating each intermediate case with the complete abundance data, we show that it is not necessary to count all individuals to recover the patterns of variation characterizing a community data table. When the same procedure is applied in combination with different distance coefficients such as the Hellinger, chord, χ 2 , percentage difference or modified Gower, or the distance between species profiles, an even lower number of individuals per species need to be counted within a sampling unit for the patterns of variation defining a community to be recovered. By applying the same counting procedure to data collected during a pilot study, we show that the maximum number of individuals that need to be counted within a sampling unit for a species can be estimated from a pilot study containing as little as 3% of randomly selected sampling units throughout the complete survey area. An example of how to apply this new counting method is presented, using data from a boreal forest Carabidae community sampled in northwestern Alberta, 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".