A NONLINEAR REGRESSION APPROACH TO TEST FOR SIZE-DEPENDENCE OF COMPETITIVE ABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An individual's competitive ability is often dependent on its size, but the methods commonly used to analyze plant competition experiments generally assume that the outcome of interactions are size independent. A method for the analysis of experiments with paired competition treatments based on nonlinear regression with a power function is presented. This method allows straightforward tests of whether a competitive interaction is size dependent, and for the significance of experimental treatments. The method is applied to three example data sets: (1) an experiment where pairs of plants were grown with and without competition at five fertilization levels, (2) an experiment where the fecundity of two snail species were compared between environments at two densities, and (3) an addition series experiment where two plant species were grown in proportional mixtures at several densities. Competitive ability was size-dependent in two of these examples, which demonstrates that a wide range of ecologically important information can be lost when the assumption of size-dependence is ignored. Regression with a power curve should always be used to test whether competitive interactions are size independent, and for the further analysis of size-dependent interactions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".