Phenological mismatch between trees and wildflowers: Reconciling divergent findings in two recent analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent evidence suggests that community science and herbarium datasets yield similar estimates of species' phenological sensitivities to temperature. Despite this, two recent studies by Alecrim et al. (2023) and Miller et al. (2022) found very different results when using different data sources (community science and herbarium specimens, respectively) to investigate whether warming threatens wildflowers with phenological mismatch in relation to shading by deciduous trees. Here, we investigated whether differences between the two studies' results could be reconciled by testing four hypotheses related to model design, species, spatiotemporal data extent and phenophase. Hybrid model structures brought results from the two datasets closer together but did not fully reconcile the differences between the studies. Neither the species nor the phenophase selected for analysis seemed to be responsible for differences in results. Cropping the datasets to match spatial and temporal extents appeared to reconcile most differences but only at the cost of much higher uncertainty associated with reduced sample size. Synthesis : Our analysis suggests that although species‐level estimates of phenological sensitivity may be similar between community science and herbarium datasets, inherent differences in the types and extent of data may lead to contradictory inference about complex biotic interactions. We conclude that, until community science data repositories expand to match the range of climate conditions present in herbarium collections or until herbarium collections match the spatial extent and temporal frequency of community science repositories, ecological studies should ideally be evaluated using both datasets to test the possibility of biased results from either.
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 | 0.059 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".