An approach to estimate short‐term, long‐term and reaction norm repeatability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Evolutionary ecologists increasingly study reaction norms that are expressed repeatedly within the same individual's lifetime. For example, foragers continuously alter anti‐predator vigilance in response to moment‐to‐moment changes in predation risk. Variation in this form of plasticity occurs both among and within individuals. Among‐individual variation in plasticity (individual by environment interaction or I × E ) is commonly studied; by contrast, despite increasing interest in its evolution and ecology, within‐individual variation in phenotypic plasticity is not. We outline a study design based on repeated measures and a multilevel extension of random regression models that enables quantification of variation in reaction norms at different hierarchical levels (such as among and within individuals). The approach enables the calculation of repeatability of reaction norm intercepts (average phenotype) and slopes (level of phenotypic plasticity); these indices are not specific to measurement or scaling and are readily comparable across data sets. The proposed study design also enables calculation of repeatability at different temporal scales (such as short‐ and long‐term repeatability), thereby answering calls for the development of approaches enabling scale‐dependent repeatability calculations. We introduce a simulation package in the R statistical language to assess power, imprecision and bias for multilevel random regression that may be utilised for realistic data sets (unequal sample sizes across individuals, missing data, etc). We apply the idea to a worked example to illustrate its utility. We conclude that consideration of multilevel variation in reaction norms deepens our understanding of the hierarchical structuring of labile characters and helps reveal the biology in heterogeneous patterns of within‐individual variance that would otherwise remain ‘unexplained’ residual variance.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".