Causal inference and large‐scale expert validation shed light on the drivers of <scp>SDM</scp> accuracy and variance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To develop a causal understanding of the drivers of Species distribution model (SDM) performance. Location United Kingdom (UK). Methods We measured the accuracy and variance of SDMs fitted for 518 species of invertebrate and plant in the UK. Our measure of variance reflects variation among replicate model fits, and taxon experts assessed model accuracy. Using directed acyclic graphs, we developed a causal model depicting plausible effects of explanatory variables (e.g. species' prevalence, sample size) on SDM accuracy and variance and quantified those effects using a multilevel piecewise path model. Results According to our model, sample size and niche completeness (proportion of a species' niche covered by sampling) directly affect SDM accuracy and variance. Prevalence and range completeness have indirect effects mediated by sample size. Challenging conventional wisdom, we found that the effect of prevalence on SDM accuracy is positive. This reflects the facts that sample size has a positive effect on accuracy and larger sample sizes are possible for widespread species. It is possible, however, that the omission of an unobserved confounder biased this effect. Previous studies, which reported negative correlations between prevalence and SDM accuracy, conditioned on sample size. Main conclusions Our model explicates the causal basis of previously reported correlations between SDM performance and species/data characteristics. It also suggests that niche completeness has similarly large effects on SDM accuracy and variance as sample size. Analysts should consider niche completeness, or proxies thereof, in addition to sample size when deciding whether modelling is worthwhile.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".