Recommendations for quantitative uncertainty consideration in ecology and evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological and evolutionary studies are currently failing to achieve complete and consistent reporting of model-related uncertainty. We identify three key barriers - a focus on parameter-related uncertainty, obscure uncertainty metrics, and limited recognition of uncertainty propagation - which have led to gaps in uncertainty consideration. However, these gaps can be closed. We propose that uncertainty reporting in ecology and evolution can be improved through wider application of existing statistical solutions and by adopting good practice from other scientific fields. Our recommendations include greater consideration of input data and model structure uncertainties, field-specific uncertainty standards for methods and reporting, and increased uncertainty propagation through the use of hierarchical models.
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 | 0.034 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.017 |
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".