MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012231370 · doi:10.1086/587842

Beta Diversity in Spatially Implicit Neutral Models: A New Way to Assess Species Migration

2008· article· en· W2012231370 on OpenAlexaff
François Munoz, Pierre Couteron, B.R. Ramesh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacommunityNeutral theory of molecular evolutionRelative abundance distributionExtinction (optical mineralogy)Abundance (ecology)Relative species abundanceGenetic algorithmEcologyImmigrationPopulationBiologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatially implicit neutral model (SINM) of S. P. Hubbell predicts species' abundance distributions at two levels: local communities where extinction balances immigration, characterized by the immigration number I, and the metacommunity, a source pool of migrants where speciation balances extinction. Previously, a plot's I was estimated from its species abundance distribution. Here, we relate neutral theory to the additive partitioning of species diversity and calculate the immigration rate into different plots from the variation in species composition among them. We revisit the G(ST) statistic of population genetics to introduce a new version, G(ST)(k), conditional on each community sample k. We derive an analytical expectation of G(ST)(k) as a function of the local immigration number, I(k), under a generalized version of the SINM, which allows the pool of migrants to deviate from the large-scale speciation-extinction balance. Simulations and field data suggest that G(ST)(k) provides reasonable estimates of immigration numbers, which were compared with the results from alternative likelihood-based estimations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207