Measuring repeatability of compositional diet estimates: An example using quantitative fatty acid signature analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By measuring the temporal consistency, or repeatability, in the diets of predators, we can gain a better understanding of the degree of individual specialization in resource utilization and implications for predator-prey interactions, population dynamics, and food web structure. To measure repeatability, we require repeated diet estimates of individuals over time, such as those derived from quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA), a popular diet estimation technique. However, diet estimates are often lengthy compositional vectors with many zeros, as some prey will not be consumed by all individuals, precluding the use of previously proposed measures of repeatability. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for inferring repeatability for multivariate data and, in particular, compositional diet estimates. We extend the commonly used measure of repeatability for univariate data to the multivariate compositional setting by utilizing the mean squares obtained from a nonparametric multivariate analysis of variance, and an appropriate choice of statistical distance. Our measure and its extension are compatible with both balanced and unbalanced data sets. Associated confidence intervals via nonparametric bootstrapping are also developed for the case of QFASA diet estimates that incorporate both sampling error and measurement error, where the latter error arises because the diets of predators are estimated. Simulation study results suggest that for practical levels of repeatability, our methods yield confidence intervals with the desired coverage probability even when the sample size relative to the dimension of the data (i.e., number of prey species eaten) is small. We tested our methods using QFASA diet estimates for free-ranging Northwest Atlantic grey seals. Given the importance of understanding how predator diets vary over time and space, our method may find broad application to other compositional diet estimates, including those derived from the stomach or fecal contents, and stable isotope analyses.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".