MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281723409 · doi:10.1111/ele.14033

Predictive models aren't for causal inference

2022· article· en· W4281723409 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausal inferenceObservational studyInferenceCausal modelCausal structurePredictive inferenceCausality (physics)Machine learningComputer scienceEconometricsEcologyArtificial intelligenceFrequentist inferenceBayesian inferenceMathematicsStatisticsBiologyBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecologists often rely on observational data to understand causal relationships. Although observational causal inference methodologies exist, predictive techniques such as model selection based on information criterion (e.g. AIC) remains a common approach used to understand ecological relationships. However, predictive approaches are not appropriate for drawing causal conclusions. Here, we highlight the distinction between predictive and causal inference and show how predictive techniques can lead to biased causal estimates. Instead, we encourage ecologists to valid causal inference methods such as the backdoor criterion, a graphical rule that can be used to determine causal relationships across observational studies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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