Detect and exploit hidden structure in fatty acid signature data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimates of predator diet composition are essential to our understanding of their ecology. Although several methods of estimating diet are practiced, methods based on biomarkers have become increasingly common. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA) is a popular method that continues to be refined and extended. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis is based on differences in the signatures of prey types, often species, which are recognized and designated by investigators. Similarly, predator signatures may be structured by known factors such as sex or age class, and the season or region of sample collection. The recognized structure in signature data inherently influences QFASA results in important and typically beneficial ways. However, predator and prey signatures may contain additional, hidden structure that investigators either choose not to incorporate into an analysis or of which they are unaware, being caused by unknown ecological mechanisms. Hidden structure also influences QFASA results, most often negatively. We developed a new method to explore signature data for hidden structure, called divisive magnetic clustering (DIMAC). Our DIMAC approach is based on the same distance measure used in diet estimation, closely linking methods of data exploration and parameter estimation, and it does not require data transformation or distributional assumptions, as do many multivariate ordination methods in common use. We investigated the potential benefits of the DIMAC method to detect and subsequently exploit hidden structure in signature data using two prey signature libraries with quite different characteristics. We found that the existence of hidden structure in prey signatures can increase the confusion between prey types and thereby reduce the accuracy and precision of QFASA diet estimates. Conversely, the detection and exploitation of hidden structure represent a potential opportunity to improve predator diet estimates and may lead to new insights into the ecology of either predator or prey. The DIMAC algorithm is implemented in the R diet estimation package qfasar.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".