A temporal beta‐diversity index to identify sites that have changed in exceptional ways in space–time surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper presents the statistical bases for temporal beta-diversity analysis, a method to study changes in community composition through time from repeated surveys at several sites. Surveys of that type are presently done by ecologists around the world. A temporal beta-diversity Index (TBI) is computed for each site, measuring the change in species composition between the first (T1) and second surveys (T2). TBI indices can be decomposed into losses and gains; they can also be tested for significance, allowing one to identify the sites that have changed in composition in exceptional ways. This method will be of value to identify exceptional sites in space-time surveys carried out to study anthropogenic impacts, including climate change. INNOVATION: . Tests of significance of coefficients in a dissimilarity matrix are usually not possible because the values in the matrix are interrelated. Here, however, the dissimilarity between T1 and T2 for a site is computed with different data from the dissimilarities used for the T1-T2 comparison at other sites. It is thus possible to compute a valid test of significance in that case. In addition, the paper shows how TBI dissimilarities can be decomposed into loss and gain components (of species, or abundances-per-species) and how a B-C plot can be produced from these components, which informs users about the processes of biodiversity losses and gains through time in space-time survey data. MAIN CONCLUSION: Three applications of the method to different ecological communities are presented. This method is applicable worldwide to all types of communities, marine, and terrestrial. R software is available implementing the method.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".