MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial Analysis in Ecology

2014· other· en· W4238028212 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Josée Fortin, Mark R. T. Dale, Jay M. Ver Hoef

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial analysisSpatial ecologyAutocorrelationScale (ratio)Common spatial patternEcologyMacroecologyTemporal scalesGeographySpatial dependenceStatisticsMathematicsCartographyRemote sensingBiogeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first step in understanding ecological processes is to identify patterns. Ecological data are usually characterized by spatial structures due to spatial autocorrelation. Spatial autocorrelation refers to the pattern in which observations from nearby locations are more likely to have similar magnitude than by chance alone. The magnitude, intensity, as well as extent of spatial autocorrelation can be quantified using spatial statistics. Most ecological data exhibit some degree of spatial autocorrelation, depending on the scale at which the data were recorded and then analyzed. Ecological phenomena are also characterized by the multiple ecological processes that act upon them; these processes often operate at more than one spatial scale. Ecological data are a composite of several spatial scales: trends at macroscales; patches, gradients and patterns at meso‐ and local scales; and random patterns at local and microscales. The different processes and patterns at different scales are not necessarily linear or additive, and this contributes to the degree of spatial dependence in the data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207