Expanding theory, methodology and empirical systems at the spatial–social interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Untangling and interrogating these complex, intertwined processes can be vital for identifying the mechanisms, causes and consequences of behavioural variation in animal ecology. Nevertheless, the integrated study of the interactions between spatial and social phenotypes and environments (at the spatial-social interface) is in its relative infancy. In this theme issue, we present a collection of papers chosen to expand the spatial-social interface along several theoretical, methodological and empirical dimensions. They detail new perspectives, methods, study systems and more, as well as offering roadmaps for applied outputs and detailing exciting new directions for the field to move in the future. In this Introduction, we outline the contents of these papers, placing them in the context of what comes before, and we synthesize a number of takeaways and future directions for the spatial-social interface. This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial-social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'.
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 | 0.063 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".