Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known to many field biologists that biosurveys of natural communities tend to produce a J-shaped curve when the numbers of species are plotted against abundance. In other words, when the number of species of abundance k is plotted against k (running from 1 to some large number), the resulting distribution peaks at the lowest abundance, then forms a concave ramp as it approaches zero at the far end of the abundance axis. Does this distribution represent a single formula operating behind the scenes, or does it represent several formulas, appropriate for different types of community? Or does it represent no particular formula at all? The research reported here has three components: (1) The analysis of a new dynamical system that simulates multispecies communities (producing J-curves in the process) and the derivation of the "logistic-J" distribution, as the underlying community equilibrium curve; (2) the summary of a general theory of sampling as a bridge between natural communities and samples of them; (3) the evaluation of extant proposals for species-abundance distributions by application of a general theory of sampling or by cross-comparison via 100 biosurveys randomly selected from the literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".