Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Biogeographical models of species’ distributions are essential tools for assessing impacts of changing environmental conditions on natural communities and ecosystems. Practitioners need more reliable predictions to integrate into conservation planning (e.g. reserve design and management). Most models still largely ignore or inappropriately take into account important features of species’ distributions, such as spatial autocorrelation, dispersal and migration, biotic and environmental interactions. Whether distributions of natural communities or ecosystems are better modelled by assembling individual species’ predictions in a bottom‐up approach or modelled as collective entities is another important issue. An international workshop was organized to address these issues. We discuss more specifically six issues in a methodological framework for generalized regression: (i) links with ecological theory; (ii) optimal use of existing data and artificially generated data; (iii) incorporating spatial context; (iv) integrating ecological and environmental interactions; (v) assessing prediction errors and uncertainties; and (vi) predicting distributions of communities or collective properties of biodiversity. Synthesis and applications . Better predictions of the effects of impacts on biological communities and ecosystems can emerge only from more robust species’ distribution models and better documentation of the uncertainty associated with these models. An improved understanding of causes of species’ distributions, especially at their range limits, as well as of ecological assembly rules and ecosystem functioning, is necessary if further progress is to be made. A better collaborative effort between theoretical and functional ecologists, ecological modellers and statisticians is required to reach these goals.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".