Integrating natural gradients, experiments, and statistical modeling in a distributed network experiment: An example from the <scp>WaRM</scp> Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of work examines the direct and indirect effects of climate change on ecosystems, typically by using manipulative experiments at a single site or performing meta-analyses across many independent experiments. However, results from single-site studies tend to have limited generality. Although meta-analytic approaches can help overcome this by exploring trends across sites, the inherent limitations in combining disparate datasets from independent approaches remain a major challenge. In this paper, we present a globally distributed experimental network that can be used to disentangle the direct and indirect effects of climate change. We discuss how natural gradients, experimental approaches, and statistical techniques can be combined to best inform predictions about responses to climate change, and we present a globally distributed experiment that utilizes natural environmental gradients to better understand long-term community and ecosystem responses to environmental change. The warming and (species) removal in mountains (WaRM) network employs experimental warming and plant species removals at high- and low-elevation sites in a factorial design to examine the combined and relative effects of climatic warming and the loss of dominant species on community structure and ecosystem function, both above- and belowground. The experimental design of the network allows for increasingly common statistical approaches to further elucidate the direct and indirect effects of warming. We argue that combining ecological observations and experiments along gradients is a powerful approach to make stronger predictions of how ecosystems will function in a warming world as species are lost, or gained, in local 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 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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".