MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296662678 · doi:10.1111/geb.13593

No strong evidence that modularity, specialization or nestedness are linked to seasonal climatic variability in bipartite networks

2022· article· en· W4296662678 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Brimacombe, Korryn Bodner, Matthew J. Smith, Dominique Gravel, Marie‐Josée Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNestednessSeasonalityModularity (biology)EcologyEcological networkCommunity structureSampling (signal processing)Variation (astronomy)Bipartite graphBiological dispersalBiologyComputer scienceSpecies richnessEcosystemEvolutionary biologyTheoretical computer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Given the influence of seasonality on most ecological systems, an emerging research area attempts to understand how community network structure is shaped by seasonal climatic variations. To do so, most researchers conduct their analyses using open networks due to the high cost associated with constructing their own community networks. However, unwanted structural differences from the unique sampling and construction methods used to create each open network likely make comparing these networks a difficult task. Here, with the largest set of open bipartite networks collected to date, we test whether seasonal climatic variations explain network structure while additionally accounting for construction/sampling differences between networks. Location Trying to approach global. Time period Contemporary. Major taxa studied Plants and animals. Methods Using 723 open bipartite networks, we test whether temperature and/or precipitation seasonality explains (un)weighted metrics of nestedness, modularity or specialization across plant–pollinator, seed‐dispersal, plant–ant, host–parasite or plant–herbivore systems. Results Generally, seasonality only weakly explained network structure: at most 16% of the variation in weighted metrics and 5% of the variation in unweighted metrics. Instead, a control for sampling bias in networks, sampling intensity, often better explained many of the network structural metrics. When limiting our analyses to only intensely sampled networks, however, about 33% of the variation in weighted modularity and specialization was explained by seasonality, but only in plant–pollinator networks. Main conclusions Altogether, we do not find strong evidence that seasonality explains network structure. Our study also highlights the large amount of structural differences in open networks, likely from the many different sampling and network construction techniques adopted by researchers when constructing networks. Hence, a definitive test for the relationship between network structure and seasonality across large spatial extents will require a dataset free from sampling and other biases, where networks are derived from a consistent sampling protocol that appropriately characterizes communities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207