Best practices for use of stable isotope mixing models in food-web studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotope mixing models are increasingly used to quantify consumer diets, but may be misused and misinterpreted. We address major challenges to their effective application. Mixing models have increased rapidly in sophistication. Current models estimate probability distributions of source contributions, have user-friendly interfaces, and incorporate complexities such as variability in isotope signatures, discrimination factors, hierarchical variance structure, covariates, and concentration dependence. For proper implementation of mixing models, we offer the following suggestions. First, mixing models can only be as good as the study and data. Studies should have clear questions, be informed by knowledge of the system, and have strong sampling designs to effectively characterize isotope variability of consumers and resources on proper spatio-temporal scales. Second, studies should use models appropriate for the question and recognize their assumptions and limitations. Decisions about source grouping or incorporation of concentration dependence can influence results. Third, studies should be careful about interpretation of model outputs. Mixing models generally estimate proportions of assimilated resources with substantial uncertainty distributions. Last, common sense, such as graphing data before analyzing, is essential to maximize usefulness of these tools. We hope these suggestions for effective implementation of stable isotope mixing models will aid continued development and application of this field.
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 | 0.116 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".