A protocol for reproducible functional diversity analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use of species traits in basic and applied ecology, conservation and biogeography has led to an exponential increase in functional diversity analyses, with > 10 000 papers published in 2010–2020, and > 1800 papers only in 2021. This interest is reflected in the development of a multitude of theoretical and methodological frameworks for calculating functional diversity, making it challenging to navigate the myriads of options and to report detailed accounts of trait‐based analyses. Therefore, the discipline of trait‐based ecology would benefit from the existence of a general guideline for standard reporting and good practices for analyses. We devise an eight‐step protocol to guide researchers in conducting and reporting functional diversity analyses, with the overarching goal of increasing reproducibility, transparency and comparability across studies. The protocol is based on: 1) identification of a research question; 2) a sampling scheme and a study design; 3–4) assemblage of data matrices; 5) data exploration and preprocessing; 6) functional diversity computation; 7) model fitting, evaluation and interpretation; and 8) data, metadata and code provision. Throughout the protocol, we provide information on how to best select research questions, study designs, trait data, compute functional diversity, interpret results and discuss ways to ensure reproducibility in reporting results. To facilitate the implementation of this template, we further develop an interactive web‐based application ( stepFD ) in the form of a checklist workflow, detailing all the steps of the protocol and allowing the user to produce a final ‘reproducibility report' to upload alongside the published paper. A thorough and transparent reporting of functional diversity analyses ensures that ecologists can incorporate others' findings into meta‐analyses, the shared data can be integrated into larger databases for consensus analyses, and available code can be reused by other researchers. All these elements are key to pushing forward this vibrant and fast‐growing field of research.
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 | 0.059 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.217 | 0.091 |
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".