The Species-Area Relationship in the Late Ordovician: A Test Using Neutral Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental biodiversity number, θ, as proposed by Hubbell, should be positively correlated with province area. Because θ can be calculated from preserved relative abundance distributions, this correlation can be tested in the fossil record for regions with known provinces. Late Ordovician (443–458 Ma) strata of Laurentia are divided into four geochemically and biologically distinct regions that reflect provinces in the epicontinental sea. We use existing and newly obtained bed-level census data to test whether Hubbell’s θ is positively correlated with the area of these four regions, corresponding roughly to the Appalachian Basin, Cincinnati Arch, Upper Mississippi Valley, and western United States and Canada. Results indicate a positive relationship between province area and θ that suggests the influence of provincial area, among other factors, on diversity. This correlation highlights the inherent link between diversity and abundance structure at local and regional scales, such that changes at one scale will necessarily affect the other. Since diversity at these smaller spatial scales is an important component of global biodiversity, determining the nature of this relationship in the fossil record has implications for understanding how diversity is assembled globally throughout the Phanerozoic.
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 | 0.022 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".