MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

10 simple rules for experimental design in ecology

2016· preprint· en· W2522963475 on OpenAlexaff
Neha Saini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Process (computing)EcologyOrder (exchange)Management scienceComputer scienceData scienceEpistemologyEngineeringBiologyBusinessPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article contains proposed guidelines for ensuring proper experimental design in ecology. In a sequential fashion, it is important to begin with stating a hypothesis, followed by clearly defining terms and choosing appropriate samples and parameters. Following the tips and guidelines in order will help guide the researchers thought process when designing an ecological experiment. Consult the listed citations for in-depth explanations when required. The rules may be generalized to other fields of science.

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)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.425
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.425
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→