MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010541311 · doi:10.2193/2007-342

Suggestions for Basic Graph Use When Reporting Wildlife Research Results

2008· article· en· W2010541311 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bret A. Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityTexas A and M University
KeywordsGraphicsComputer scienceGraphData sciencePresentation (obstetrics)Statistical graphicsInformation retrievalData miningTheoretical computer scienceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: I review concepts of basic graph design and outline general guidance for basic preparation and presentation of data. I comment on the continued use of convenient summary graphics found in our literature where data are often misrepresented and review potential remedies that will improve data description and graphical efficiency for the most frequently used graph types in wildlife data reporting. I suggest that graphics should play a larger role in data description and analysis and less in summarizing study 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.386
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.386
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.060

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207