How many variables does WorldClim have, truly? Generative A.I. unravels the intrinsic dimension of bioclimatic variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 19 standard bioclimatic variables available from the WorldClim dataset are some of the most used data in ecology and organismal biology. It is well known that many of the variables are correlated with each other, suggesting there are fewer than 19 independent dimensions of information in them. But how much information is there? Here I explore the 19 WorldClim bioclimatic variables from the perspective of the manifold hypothesis: that many high dimensional datasets are actually confined to a lower dimensional manifold embedded in an ambient space. Using a state-of-the-art generative probabilistic model (variational autoencoder) to model the data on a non-linear manifold reveals that only 5 uncorrelated dimensions are adequate to capture the full range of variation in the bioclimatic variables, with a clear data-driven separation between informative and redundant dimensions that eliminates arbitrary thresholds. I show that these 5 variables have meaningful structure and are sufficient to produce species distribution models (SDMs) nearly as good and in some ways better than SDMs using the original 19 bioclimatic variables. I have made the 5 synthetic variables available as a raster dataset at 2.5 minute resolution in an R package that also includes functions to convert back and forth between the 5 variables and the original 19.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".