Testing and recommending methods for fitting size spectra to data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The size spectrum of an ecological community characterizes how a property, such as abundance or biomass, varies with body size. Size spectra are often used as ecosystem indicators of marine systems. They have been fitted to data from various sources, including groundfish trawl surveys, visual surveys of fish in kelp forests and coral reefs, sediment samples of benthic invertebrates and satellite remote sensing of chlorophyll. Over the past decades, several methods have been used to fit size spectra to data. We document eight such methods, demonstrating their commonalities and differences. Seven methods use linear regression (of which six require binning of data), while the eighth uses maximum likelihood estimation. We test the accuracy of the methods on simulated data. We demonstrate that estimated size‐spectrum slopes are not always comparable between the seven regression‐based methods because such methods are not estimating the same parameter. We find that four of the eight tested methods can sometimes give reasonably accurate estimates of the exponent of the individual size distribution (which is related to the slope of the size spectrum). However, sensitivity analyses find that maximum likelihood estimation is the only method that is consistently accurate, and the only one that yields reliable confidence intervals for the exponent. We therefore recommend the use of maximum likelihood estimation when fitting size spectra. To facilitate this, we provide documented R code for fitting and plotting results. This should provide consistency in future studies and improve the quality of any resulting advice to ecosystem managers. In particular, the calculation of reliable confidence intervals will allow proper consideration of uncertainty when making management decisions.
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 | 0.146 | 0.566 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".