Generalism drives abundance: A computational causal discovery approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ubiquitous pattern in ecological systems is that more abundant species tend to be more generalist; that is, they interact with more species or can occur in wider range of habitats. However, there is no consensus on whether generalism drives abundance (a selection process) or abundance drives generalism (a drift process). As it is difficult to conduct direct experiments to solve this chicken-and-egg dilemma, previous studies have used a causal discovery method based on formal logic and have found that abundance drives generalism. Here, we refine this method by correcting its bias regarding skewed distributions, and employ two other independent causal discovery methods based on nonparametric regression and on information theory, respectively. Contrary to previous work, all three independent methods strongly indicate that generalism drives abundance when applied to datasets on plant-hummingbird communities and reef fishes. Furthermore, we find that selection processes are more important than drift processes in structuring multispecies systems when the environment is variable. Our results showcase the power of the computational causal discovery approach to aid ecological 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".