MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240582613 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2427

10 simple rules for best experimental design in ecology

2016· preprint· en· W4240582613 on OpenAlexaff
Farwa Sajadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceChecklistBest practiceEcologyPublishingManagement scienceData scienceOperations researchEngineeringEpistemologyPsychologyProgramming languageLawPolitical scienceBiologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quick set of rules on how best to execute an experimental design in ecology. From having a clear hypothesis to obtaining accurate statistics, this guide will help make sure authors are on the right track before publishing. The 10 simple rules are based on articles written to help readers and editors learn more about experimental design and how to avoid any unseeable pitfalls. These rules act as a checklist for authors to go through to make sure they have created the best experimental design for their procedure.

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)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.318
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.318
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.027

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→