MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Introduction to the Practice of Ecological Modeling

2000· article· en· W2111888236 on OpenAlexaff
Leland J. Jackson, Anett S. Trebitz, Kathryn L. Cottingham

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)EcologyTable (database)Computer scienceSociologyOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

odeling has become an important tool in the study of ecological systems,as a scan of the table of con tents of a ny major eco l ogical journ a l makes abundantly clear. A number of books have recently been published that provide excellent advice on mo del construction, building, and use (e.g.,Gotelli 1995, Gurney and Nisbet 1998, Roughgarden 1998) and add to the classic literature on mo deling ecological systems and their dynamics (e.g., Maynard Smith 1974, Nisbet and Gurney 1 9 8 2 ) . Un fortu n a tely, h owever, l i t t l e — i f a ny — of t h i s growing literature on e cological modeling addresses the motivation to model and the initial stages of the modeling process, information that beginning students would find useful. Fast computers and graphical software packages have removed much of the drudgery of creating models with a programming language and opened new avenues of model construction,use,and even misuse. There are many reasons why a student might want to consider modeling as a component of his or her education. Models p rovide an opportunity to explo re ideas regarding ecological systems that it may not be possible to field-test for logistical, political, or financial reasons. Often, learning occurs from apparently st range results and unexpected sur prises. The process of formulating an e cological model is ext remely helpful for organizing one’s thinking , bringing hidden assumptions to light, and identifying data needs. More and more,students want to “do something” with modeling but are not sure how to get started. The goals of this article are to outline issues concerning the value of ecological models and some possible motivations for mo deling, and to provide an entry point to the established modeling literature so that those who are beginning to think about using models in their research can integrate modeling usefully. We therefore envision the typical reader to be an advanced undergraduate, a beginning graduate student, or a new modeler. We first consider some of the values of models and the motivation for modeling. We then discuss the steps involved in developing a mo del from an initial idea to something that is implemented on a computer, outlining some of the decisions that must be ma de along the way. Many excellent texts and journal articles deal with the technical details of models and model construction; we do not attempt to replace this literature, but rather try to make the reader aware of the issues that must be considered and point to some of the sources we have found particularly useful. We b egin with the assumption that the reader has decided that he or she would like to “do something” with modeling as part of his or her research (Figure 1). It is important to recognize the difference between models and the modeling process. A model is a representation of a particular thing, idea, or condition. Models can be as simple as a verbal statement about a subje ct or two boxes c onnected by an arrow to represent some r elationship. Alternatively, models can be ext remely c omplex and detailed, such as a mathematical description of the pathways o f nitrogen t ransformations within ecosystems. The model ing process is the series of steps taken to convert an idea first into a conceptual model and then into a quantitative m odel . Because part of what eco l ogists do is revi s e hypotheses and collect new data, the model and the view of nature that it r epresents often und ergo many changes from the initial conception to what is d eemed the final product. The discussion that follows is organized to consider issues in a sequence similar to what a new modeler would encounter. Because individuals’ backgrounds differ, the sequence is not fixed. We map one possible route through the sorts of decisions that will most lik ely need to be considered; this course is derived from our individual experiences plus the collective knowledge o f our reviewers. We begin with conceptual models because many people, even self-labeled nonmodelers, formulate conceptual models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.017

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations120
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicSustainability and Ecological Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207