MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976079694 · doi:10.24908/iee.2019.12.5.c

Discoveries and novel insights in ecology using structural equation modeling

2019· article· en· W2976079694 on OpenAlex
Daniel C. Laughlin, James B. Grace

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIdeas in Ecology and Evolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsStructural equation modelingRespondentEcologyData scienceTask (project management)Ask priceComputer sciencePsychologyBiologyMachine learningPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we enter the era of data science (Lortie 2018), quantitative analysis methodologies are proliferating rapidly, leaving ecologists with the task of choosing among many alternatives. The use of structural equation modeling (SEM) by ecologists has increased in recent years, prompting us to ask users questions about their experience with the methodology. Responses indicate an enthusiastic endorsement of SEM. Two major elements of respondent’s experiences seem to contribute to their positive response, (1) a sense that they are obtaining more accurate explanatory understanding through the use of SEM and (2) excitement generated by the discovery of novel insights into their systems. We elaborate here on the detection of indirect effects, offsetting effects, and suppressed effects, and demonstrate how discovering these effects can advance 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it