Is the Mantel correlogram powerful enough to be useful in ecological analysis? A simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mantel correlogram is an elegant way to compute a correlogram for multivariate data. However, recent papers raised concerns about the power of the Mantel test itself. Hence the question: Is the Mantel correlogram powerful enough to be useful? To explore this issue, we compared the performances of the Mantel correlogram to those of other methods, using numerical simulations based on random, normally distributed data. For a single response variable, we compared it to the Moran and Geary correlograms. Type I error rates of the three methods were correct. Power of the Mantel correlogram was nearly as high as that of the univariate methods. For the multivariate case, the test of the multivariate variogram developed in the context of multiscale ordination is in fact a Mantel test, so that the power of the two methods is the same by definition. We devised an alternative permutation test based on the variance, which yielded similar results. Overall, the power of the Mantel test was high, the method successfully detecting spatial correlation at rates similar to the permutation test of the variance statistic in multivariate variograms. We conclude that the Mantel correlogram deserves its place in the ecologist's toolbox.
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 | 0.022 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".