A quantitative framework for investigating the reliability of network construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Descriptions of ecological networks typically assume that the same interspecific interactions occur each time a community is observed. This contrasts with the known stochasticity of ecological communities: community composition, species abundances, and link structure all vary in space and time. Moreover, finite sampling generates variation in the set of interactions actually observed. Here we develop the conceptual and analytical tools needed to capture uncertainty in the estimation of pairwise interactions. To define the problem, we identify the different contributions to the uncertainty of an interaction and its implications for the estimation of network properties. We then outline a framework to quantify the uncertainty around each interaction. We illustrate this framework using the most extensively sampled network to date. We found significant uncertainty in estimates for the probability of most pairwise interactions which we could, however, limit with informative priors. Through these efforts, we demonstrate the utility of our approach and the importance of acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in network studies. Most importantly, we stress that networks are best thought of as systems constructed from random variables, the stochastic nature of which must be acknowledged for an accurate representation. Doing so will fundamentally change networks analyses and yield greater realism.
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 | 0.037 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".