MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310117736 · doi:10.1101/2022.11.27.518099

Reconceptualizing beta diversity: a hypervolume geometric approach

2022· preprint· en· W4310117736 on OpenAlexaff
Chuliang Song, Muyang Lu, Joseph Bennett, Benjamin Gilbert, Marie‐Josée Fortin, Andrew Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBETA (programming language)Diversity (politics)Beta diversityMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationSociologyBiologyAnthropologyBiodiversityEcologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Beta diversity—the variation among community compositions in a region—is a fundamental measure of biodiversity. Despite a diverse set of measures to quantify beta diversity, most measures have posited that beta diversity is maximized when each community has a single distinct species. However, this assumption overlooks the ecological significance of species interactions and non-additivity in ecological systems, where the function and behaviour of species depend on other species in a community. Here, we introduce a geometric approach to measure beta diversity as the hypervolume of the geometric embedding of a metacommunity. This approach explicitly accounts for non-additivity and captures the idea that introducing a unique, species-rich community composition to a metacommunity increases beta diversity. We show that our hypervolume measure is closely linked to and naturally extends previous information- and variation-based measures while providing a unifying geometric framework for widely adopted extensions of beta diversity. Applying our geometric measures to empirical data, we address two long-standing questions in beta diversity research—the latitudinal pattern of beta diversity and the effect of sampling effort—and present novel ecological insights that were previously obscured by the limitations of traditional approaches. In sum, our geometric approach reconceptualizes beta diversity, offering an alternative and complementary perspective to previous measures, with immediate applicability to existing data.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→