Estimating phenology and phenological shifts with hierarchical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate-driven changes to phenology are some of the most prevalent climate change impacts, yet there is no commonly accepted approach to modeling phenological shifts. Here, we present a hierarchical modeling framework for estimating intra-annual patterns in phenology (e.g., peak phenological expression) and analyzing interannual rates of change in peak phenology. Our approach allows for the estimation of multiple sources of uncertainty, including observation error (e.g., imperfect observations of intra-annual patterns in phenology like peak flowering date) and variation in phenological processes (e.g., uncertainty in the rate of change in annual peak phenological expression). Covariates may be included as predictors of annual peaks or interannual variability in phenological responses. We demonstrate the use of our hierarchical modeling framework in two migratory species-juvenile chum salmon and Swainson's thrush. We acknowledge that the complexity of hierarchical models can be difficult to implement from scratch and present an R package that can be used to model peak dates and range (number of days between 25th- and 75th-quartile dates), as well as a rate of change in peak phenology. Increasing precision, calculating uncertainty, and allowing for imperfect data sets when estimating phenological shifts should help ecologists understand how organisms respond to climate change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".