Identifying spatial relationships at multiple scales: principal coordinates of neighbour matrices (PCNM) and geostatistical approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared two methodological approaches – principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM) and geostatistics – that both aim at extracting several spatial scales in order to identify spatial relationships between organisms and environmental variables at multiple scales. From a statistical point of view, PCNM analysis and geostatistics come from “two different worlds”– PCNM is based on classical “data analysis” while geostatistical modelling is developed in a probabilistic context. These two methods were used to investigate the spatial relationships between defoliation caused by spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana and bioclimatic conditions in Ontario since 1941 through a wide range of scales. On the one hand, PCNM variables related to defoliation frequency were partitioned into four spatial submodels representing respectively four spatial scales: very broad scale (ca>300 km), broad scale (ca 180 km), fine (ca 100 km), and very fine (<80 km). On the other hand, nested variogram modelling was used to identify the relevant scales. The nested variogram model was composed of four variograms with different characteristic scales close to those of the PCNM spatial submodels. Maps of PCNM submodels and kriging components revealed similar spatial patterns of defoliation frequency at very broad and broad scales while spatial patterns at fine and very fine scales looked quite different. Both methods showed that defoliation by spruce budworm occurs at the broader spatial scales but may be explained by fluctuations at the smaller scales. Finally, results based on geostatistics using a Linear Model of Coregionalisation suggested that climatic conditions can be considered to act at the level of outbreak dynamics while the tree community of spruce budworm's principal hosts controls local population dynamics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".