MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

10 simple rules for designing and analyzing field experiments in ecology

2016· preprint· en· W2527684218 on OpenAlexaff
Basma Nazal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Simple (philosophy)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Interpretation (philosophy)EcologyData scienceManagement scienceData miningEngineeringMathematicsProgramming languageEpistemologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of 10 fundamental rules to successfully design, execute, and analyze biological field experiments. This list tackles the main components of an experiment beginning with the hypothesis and predictions, to the design and execution, as well as statistical analysis and interpretation of data in order for researchers to create the best experimental design for their project. Although this paper is aimed at field experiments in ecology, many of the rules are applicable to other streams of biology.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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→