Compositional turnover in host and parasite communities does not change network structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreasing similarity between ecological communities with increasing geographic distance (i.e. distance‐decay ) is a common biogeographical observation in free‐living communities, and a slightly less common observation for parasite communities. Ecological networks of interacting species may adhere to a similar pattern of decreasing interaction similarity with increasing geographic distance, especially if species interactions are maintained across space. We extend this further, examining if host–parasite networks – independent of host and parasite species identities – become more structurally dissimilar with increasing geographic distance. Utilizing a global database of helminth parasite occurrence records, we find evidence for distance‐decay relationships in host and parasite communities at both regional and global scales, but fail to detect similar relationships in network structural similarity. Host and parasite community similarity were strongly related, and both decayed rapidly with increasing geographic distance, typically resulting in complete dissimilarity after approximately 2500 km. Our failure to detect a decay in network structural similarity suggests the possibility that different host and parasite species are filling the same functional roles in interaction networks, or that variation in network similarity may be better explained by other geographic variables or aspects of host and parasite ecology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".