Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximum entropy (maxent) models assign probabilities to states that (1) agree with measured macroscopic constraints on attributes of the states and (2) are otherwise maximally uninformative and are thus as close as possible to a specified prior distribution. Such models have recently become popular in ecology, but classical inferential statistical tests require assumptions of independence during the allocation of entities to states that are rarely fulfilled in ecology. This paper describes a new permutation test for such maxent models that is appropriate for very general prior distributions and for cases in which many states have zero abundance and that can be used to test for conditional relevance of subsets of constraints. Simulations show that the test gives correct probability estimates under the null hypothesis. Power under the alternative hypothesis depends primarily on the number and strength of the constraints and on the number of states in the model; the number of empty states has only a small effect on power. The test is illustrated using two empirical data sets to test the community assembly model of B. Shipley, D. Vile, and E. Garnier and the species abundance distribution models of S. Pueyo, F. He, and T. Zillio.
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 | 0.089 | 0.380 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".