MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064337249 · doi:10.4236/ns.2014.67044

Weighted Gini-Simpson Quadratic Index of Biodiversity for Interdependent Species

2014· article· en· W2064337249 on OpenAlexaff
Radu Cornel Guiașu, Silviu Guiaşu

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessRelative species abundanceBiodiversityHabitatIndex (typography)Abundance (ecology)EcologyStatisticsBiologyMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weighted Gini-Simpson quadratic index is the simplest measure of biodiversity which takes into account the relative abundance of species and some weights assigned to the species. These weights could be assigned based on factors such as the phylogenetic distance between species, or their relative conservation values, or even the species richness or vulnerability of the habitats where these species live. In the vast majority of cases where the biodiversity is measured the species are supposed to be independent, which means that the relative proportion of a pair of species is the product of the relative proportions of the component species making up the respective pair. In the first section of the paper, the main versions of the weighted Gini-Simpson index of biodiversity for the pairs and triads of independent species are presented. In the second section of the paper, the weighted Gini-Simpson quadratic index is calculated for the general case when the species are interdependent. In this instance, the weights reflect the conservation values of the species and the distribution pattern variability of the subsets of species in the respective habitat induced by the inter-dependence between species. The third section contains a numerical example.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural ScienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207