MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298120149 · doi:10.1101/2022.09.29.509951

Clarifying space use concepts in ecology: range vs. occurrence distributions

2022· preprint· en· W4298120149 on OpenAlexafffund
Jesse M. Alston, Christen H. Fleming, Michael Noonan, Marlee A. Tucker, Inês Silva, Cody Folta, Thomas S. Akre, Abdullahi H. Ali, Jerrold L. Belant, Dean E. Beyer, Niels Blaum, Katrin Böhning‐Gaese, Rogério Cunha de Paula, Jasja Dekker, Jonathan Drescher‐Lehman, Nina Farwig, Claudia Fichtel, Christina Fischer, Adam T. Ford, René Janssen, Florian Jeltsch, Peter M. Kappeler, Scott LaPoint, A. Catherine Markham, Emília Patrícia Medici, Ronaldo Gonçalves Morato, Ran Nathan, Kirk A. Olson, Bruce D. Patterson, Tyler R. Petroelje, Emiliano Esterci Ramalho, Sascha Rösner, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Santos, Dana G. Schabo, Nuria Selva, Agnieszka Sergiel, Orr Spiegel, Wiebke Ullmann, Filip Zięba, Tomasz Zwijacz‐Kozica, George Wittemyer, William F. Fagan, Thomas Mueller, Justin M. Calabrese

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Institute for Biological ResearchSächsisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und KunstBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEstimatorHome rangeRange (aeronautics)EcologyKernel density estimationMeasure (data warehouse)EconometricsComputer scienceInferenceStatistical inferenceStatisticsGeographyData scienceMathematicsData miningArtificial intelligenceHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207