A strong test of a maximum entropy model of trait-based community assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate the predictive power and generality of Shipley's maximum entropy (maxent) model of community assembly in the context of 96 quadrats over a 120-km2 area having a large (79) species pool and strong gradients. Quadrats were sampled in the herbaceous understory of ponderosa pine forests in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona, U.S.A. The maxent model accurately predicted species relative abundances when observed community-weighted mean trait values were used as model constraints. Although only 53% of the variation in observed relative abundances was associated with a combination of 12 environmental variables, the maxent model based only on the environmental variables provided highly significant predictive ability, accounting for 72% of the variation that was possible given these environmental variables. This predictive ability largely surpassed that of nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) or detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) ordinations. Using cross-validation with 1000 independent runs, the median correlation between observed and predicted relative abundances was 0.560 (the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles were 0.045 and 0.825). The qualitative predictions of the model were also noteworthy: dominant species were correctly identified in 53% of the quadrats, 83% of rare species were correctly predicted to have a relative abundance of < 0.05, and the median predicted relative abundance of species actually absent from a quadrat was 5 x 10(-5).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".