MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529454262 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139236355.009

Next generation biodiversity analysis

2016· book-chapter· en· W2529454262 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrdad Hajibabaei, Ian W. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityDiversity (politics)GeographyEcologyEcosystemWord (group theory)BiologySociologyLinguisticsPhilosophyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction – facing challenges Biodiversity, in the words of E. O. Wilson, is ‘in one sense, everything’ (Wilson, 1997). This is the most catholic of the numerous definitions that various authors have given of ‘biological diversity’ or ‘biodiversity’. To give some idea of the most common constituents of these definitions, Figure 8.1 shows a word cloud based on 22 definitions, with the size of the word being proportional to its frequency in the definitions included. Clearly, species and ecosystems play a central role in what we call ‘biodiversity’. However, our inability to measure and document – even to define – biodiversity's basic units (i.e. species) has resulted in orders of magnitude difference in our best estimates of Earth's biotic diversity (May 1992; 2011; Mora et al. 2011; Pimm et al. 2014). Biodiversity and related studies have often focused on a narrow spectrum of species of mainly charismatic groups (Clark and May 2002; Pawar 2003; Chariton et al. 2010a). This is understandable, though not excusable, given the challenges inherent in studies including a greater variety of species and vast ecosystems. In an ambitious, taxonomically diverse (but not comprehensive) inventory of a tropical forest in Cameroon, Lawton and colleagues (1998) found that the effort required for identification ranged from 50 ‘scientist-hours’ required to assign all morphospecies to known species for birds, to 6000 ‘scientist-hours’ to assign 10% of individual nematodes to species (over 90% of morphospecies could not be assigned to known species). In another study, the sampling and identification time required for 15 different taxa at five tropical sites was 18 200 person-hours (Barlow et al. 2007; Gardner et al. 2008). In fact, projects that aim at large-scale documentation of biodiversity, or bioinventories, have been faced with a serious bottleneck in the timely identification of specimens. Dan Janzen and Winnie Hallwachs, who run one of the largest and longest bioinventory efforts located in the Área de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG), Northwest Costa Rica, have been using molecular tools such as DNA barcoding (see below) to address this bottleneck (Janzen et al. 2009). Additionally, the need for more efficient approaches for biodiversity analysis is reflected in many situations where timely and accurate characterization of biota is critical (see below).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.012

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.151 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207