A common framework for identifying linkage rules across different types of interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species interactions, ranging from antagonisms to mutualisms, form the architecture of biodiversity and determine ecosystem functioning. Understanding the rules responsible for who interacts with whom, as well as the functional consequences of these interspecific interactions, is central to predicting community dynamics and stability. Species traits sensu lato may affect different ecological processes determining species interactions through a two-step process. First, ecological and life-history traits govern species distributions and abundance, and hence determine species co-occurrence, which is a prerequisite for them to interact. Second, morphological traits between co-occurring potential interaction partners should match for the realization of an interaction. Moreover, inferring functioning from a network of interactions may require the incorporation of interaction efficiency. This efficiency may be also trait-mediated, and can depend on the extent of matching, or on morphological, physiological or behavioural traits. It has been shown that both neutral and trait-based models can predict the general structure of networks, but they rarely accurately predict individual interactions, suggesting that these models may be predicting the right structure for the wrong reason. We propose to move away from testing null models with a framework that explicitly models the probability of interaction among individuals given their traits. The proposed models integrate both neutral and trait-matching constraints while using only information about known interactions, thereby overcoming problems originating from under-sampling of rare interactions (i.e. missing links). They can easily accommodate qualitative or quantitative data, and can incorporate trait variation within species, such as values that vary along developmental stages or environmental gradients. We use three case studies to show that they can detect strong trait matching (e.g. predator-prey system), relaxed trait matching (e.g. herbivore-plant system) and barrier trait matching (e.g. plant-pollinator systems). Only by elucidating which species traits are important in each process, i.e. in determining interaction establishment, frequency, and efficiency, can we advance in explaining how species interact and the consequences for ecosystem functioning.
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".