MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033227712 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2002.179

Individual-Based Modelling Potentials and Limitations

2002· review· en· W2033227712 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Broder Breckling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le DéveloppementUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsIBMComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Management sciencePopulationData scienceFocus (optics)Quality (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)EcologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual-based modelling (IBM) is an important option in ecology for the study of specific properties of complex ecological interaction networks. The main application of this model type is the analysis of population characteristics at high resolution. IBM also contributes to the advancement of ecological theory. One of the remarkable potentials of the approach is the possibility of studying self-organization and emergent properties that arise from individual actions on higher integration levels, especially on the population level. This review outlines the background and different application fields of individual-based models together with a short description of the technical implications of model setup. The limitations of this modelling approach result from the technical basis of model construction, which can handle a limited number of active entities only. Limits in biological knowledge also restrict the application of this model type. The paper presents some individual-based models that have been developed for different purposes and briefly discusses these models. Concerning the perspective of IBM, a coincidence with developments in artificial life research is explained. IBM shifts the focus of ecological analysis of dynamic systems from structurally fixed settings to the analysis of self-organizing interaction patterns that are variable in quantity and quality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207