MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157330322 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2728

Statistical methods for temporal and space–time analysis of community composition data <sup/>

2014· review· en· W2157330322 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Legendre, Olivier Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsOrdinationUnivariateMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysis of varianceCorrelogramStatisticsCompositional dataCanonical correlationTime seriesMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review focuses on the analysis of temporal beta diversity, which is the variation in community composition along time in a study area. Temporal beta diversity is measured by the variance of the multivariate community composition time series and that variance can be partitioned using appropriate statistical methods. Some of these methods are classical, such as simple or canonical ordination, whereas others are recent, including the methods of temporal eigenfunction analysis developed for multiscale exploration (i.e. addressing several scales of variation) of univariate or multivariate response data, reviewed, to our knowledge for the first time in this review. These methods are illustrated with ecological data from 13 years of benthic surveys in Chesapeake Bay, USA. The following methods are applied to the Chesapeake data: distance-based Moran's eigenvector maps, asymmetric eigenvector maps, scalogram, variation partitioning, multivariate correlogram, multivariate regression tree, and two-way MANOVA to study temporal and space-time variability. Local (temporal) contributions to beta diversity (LCBD indices) are computed and analysed graphically and by regression against environmental variables, and the role of species in determining the LCBD values is analysed by correlation analysis. A tutorial detailing the analyses in the R language is provided in an appendix.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.018

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations291
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207