EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF NEUTRAL THEORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a general framework for testing neutral theory. We summarize similarities and differences between ten different versions of neutral theory. Two central predictions of neutral theory are that species abundance distributions will follow a zero-sum multinomial distribution and that community composition will change over space due to dispersal limitation. We review all published empirical tests of neutral theory. With the exception of one type of test, all tests fail to support neutral theory. We identify and perform several new tests. Specifically, we develop a set of best practices for testing the fit of the zero-sum multinomial (ZSM) vs. a lognormal null hypothesis and apply this to a data set, concluding that the lognormal outperforms neutral theory on robust tests. We explore whether a priori parameterization of neutral theory is possible, and we conclude that it is not. We show that non-curve-fitting predictions readily derived from neutral theory are easily falsifiable. In toto, there is a current overwhelming weight of evidence against neutral theory. We suggest some next steps for neutral theory.
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 | 0.101 | 0.423 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".