An approach to measure distance between compositional diet estimates containing essential zeros
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many applications involving compositional data, it is necessary to establish a valid measure of distance, yet when essential zeros are present traditional distance measures are problematic. In quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA), compositional diet estimates are produced that often contain many zeros. In order to test for a difference in diet between two populations of predators using the QFASA diet estimates, a legitimate measure of distance for use in the test statistic is necessary. Since ecologists using QFASA must first select the potential species of prey in the predator's diet, the chosen measure of distance should be such that the distance between samples does not decrease as the number of species considered increases, a property known in general as subcompositional coherence. In this paper we compare three measures of distance for compositional data capable of handling zeros, but not satisfying some of the well-accepted principles of compositional data analysis. For compositional diet estimates, the most relevant of these is the property of subcompositionally coherence and we show that this property may be approximately satisfied. Based on the results of a simulation study and an application to real-life QFASA diet estimates of grey seals, we recommend the chi-square measure of distance.
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 | 0.014 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".