Data-based, synthesis-driven: setting the agenda for computational ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computational thinking is the integration of algorithms, software, and data, to solve general questions in a field. Computation ecology has the potential to transform the way ecologists think about the integration of data and models. As the practice is gaining prominence as a way to conduct ecological research, it is important to reflect on what its agenda could be, and how it fits within the broader landscape of ecological research. In this contribution, we suggest areas in which empirical ecologists, modellers, and the emerging community of computational ecologists could engage in a constructive dialogue to build on one another’s expertise; specifically, about the need to make predictions from models actionable, about the best standards to represent ecological data, and about the proper ways to credit data collection and data reuse. We discuss how training can be amended to improve computational literacy.
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 | 0.188 | 0.462 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".