Additional file 2 of Realized niche shift of an invasive widow spider: drivers and impacts of human activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 2. Table S2: Performances of the AUS climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the randomkfold (k = 10) partition method. Table S3: Performances of the AUS climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the block partition method. Table S4: Performances of the AUS climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard1 partition method. Table S5: Performances of the AUS climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard2 partition method. Table S6: Performances of the AUS full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the randomkfold (k = 10) partition method. Table S7: Performances of the AUS full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the block partition method. Table S8: Performances of the AUS full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard1 partition method. Table S9: Performances of the AUS full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard2 partition method. Table S10: Performances of the INV climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the randomkfold (k = 10) partition method. Table S11: Performances of the INV climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the block partition method. Table S12: Performances of the INV climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard1 partition method. Table S13: Performances of the INV climatic models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard2 partition method. Table S14: Performances of the INV full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the randomkfold (k = 10) partition method. Table S15: Performances of the INV full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the block partition method. Table S16: Performances of the INV full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard1 partition method. Table S17: Performances of the INV full models of Latrodectus hasselti with the checkerboard2 partition method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.689 | 0.100 |
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".