THE PROBLEM AND PROMISE OF SCALE DEPENDENCY IN COMMUNITY PHYLOGENETICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of scale dependency is widespread in investigations of ecological communities. Null model investigations of community assembly exemplify the challenges involved because they typically include subjectively defined "regional species pools." The burgeoning field of community phylogenetics appears poised to face similar challenges. Our objective is to quantify the scope of the problem of scale dependency by comparing the phylogenetic structure of assemblages across contrasting geographic and taxonomic scales. We conduct phylogenetic analyses on communities within three tropical forests, and perform a sensitivity analysis with respect to two scaleable inputs: taxonomy and species pool size. We show that (1) estimates of phylogenetic overdispersion within local assemblages depend strongly on the taxonomic makeup of the local assemblage and (2) comparing the phylogenetic structure of a local assemblage to a species pool drawn from increasingly larger geographic scales results in an increased signal of phylogenetic clustering. We argue that, rather than posing a problem, "scale sensitivities" are likely to reveal general patterns of diversity that could help identify critical scales at which local or regional influences gain primacy for the structuring of communities. In this way, community phylogenetics promises to fill an important gap in community ecology and biogeography research.
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 | 0.029 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".