MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079080119 · doi:10.1177/0959683611430412

Testing peatland testate amoeba transfer functions: Appropriate methods for clustered training-sets

2011· article· en· W2079080119 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Payne, Richard J. Telford, Jeffrey J. Blackford, Antony Blundell, Robert K. Booth, Dan J. Charman, Łukasz Lamentowicz, Mariusz Lamentowicz, Edward A. D. Mitchell, Genevieve Potts, Graeme T. Swindles, Barry G. Warner, Wendy Woodland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Holocene · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBjerknessenteret for klimaforskning, Universitetet i BergenNorges ForskningsrådBritish Institute at Ankara
KeywordsTestate amoebaePeatEcologyAmoeba (genus)Set (abstract data type)Contrast (vision)StatisticsPhysical geographyComputer scienceMathematicsBiologyGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transfer functions are widely used in palaeoecology to infer past environmental conditions from fossil remains of many groups of organisms. In contrast to traditional training-set design with one observation per site, some training-sets, including those for peatland testate amoeba-hydrology transfer functions, have a clustered structure with many observations from each site. Here we show that this clustered design causes standard performance statistics to be overly optimistic. Model performance when applied to independent data sets is considerably weaker than suggested by statistical cross-validation. We discuss the reasons for these problems and describe leave-one-site-out cross-validation and the cluster bootstrap as appropriate methods for clustered training-sets. Using these methods we show that the performance of most testate amoeba-hydrology transfer functions is worse than previously assumed and reconstructions are more uncertain.

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)0.002
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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations62
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe HoloceneSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207