A new probabilistic method for quantifying <i>n</i>‐dimensional ecological niches and niche overlap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable progress has been made in the development of statistical tools to quantify trophic relationships using stable isotope ratios, including tools that address size and overlap of isotopic niches. We build upon recent progress and propose a new probabilistic method for determining niche region and pairwise niche overlap that can be extended beyond two dimensions, provides directional estimates of niche overlap, accounts for species-specific distributions in niche space, and, unlike geometric methods, produces consistent and unique bivariate projections of multivariate data. We define the niche region (NR) as a given 95% (or user-defined a) probability region in multivariate space. Overlap is calculated as the probability that an individual from species A is found in the N(R) of species B. Uncertainty is accounted for in a Bayesian framework, and is the only aspect of the methodology that depends on sample size. Application is illustrated with three-dimensional stable isotope data, but practitioners could use any continuous indicator of ecological niche in any number of dimensions. We suggest that this represents an advance in our ability to quantify and compare ecological niches in a way that is more consistent with Hutchinson's concept of an "n-dimensional hypervolume".
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".