Building up biogeography: Pattern to process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Linking pattern to process across spatial and temporal scales has been a key goal of the field of biogeography. In January 2017, the 8th biennial conference of the International Biogeography Society sponsored a symposium on Building up biogeography—process to pattern that aimed to review progress towards this goal. Here we present a summary of the symposium, in which we identified promising areas of current research and suggested future research directions. We focus on (1) emerging types of data such as behavioural observations and ancient DNA, (2) how to better incorporate historical data (such as fossils) to move beyond what we term “footprint measures” of past dynamics and (3) the role that novel modelling approaches (e.g. maximum entropy theory of ecology and approximate Bayesian computation) and conceptual frameworks can play in the unification of disciplines. We suggest that the gaps separating pattern and process are shrinking, and that we can better bridge these aspects by considering the dimensions of space and time simultaneously.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".