PERFICT: A Re‐imagined foundation for predictive ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making predictions from ecological models-and comparing them to data-offers a coherent approach to evaluate model quality, regardless of model complexity or modelling paradigm. To date, our ability to use predictions for developing, validating, updating, integrating and applying models across scientific disciplines while influencing management decisions, policies, and the public has been hampered by disparate perspectives on prediction and inadequately integrated approaches. We present an updated foundation for Predictive Ecology based on seven principles applied to ecological modelling: make frequent Predictions, Evaluate models, make models Reusable, Freely accessible and Interoperable, built within Continuous workflows that are routinely Tested (PERFICT). We outline some benefits of working with these principles: accelerating science; linking with data science; and improving science-policy integration.
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 | 0.038 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".