Predicting and Prioritising Community Assembly: Learning Outcomes via Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community assembly provides the foundation for applications in biodiversity conservation, climate change, invasion, restoration and synthetic ecology. However, predicting and prioritising assembly outcomes remains difficult. We address this challenge via a mechanism-free approach useful when little data or knowledge exist (LOVE; Learning Outcomes Via Experiments). We carry out assembly experiments ('actions', here, random combinations of species additions) potentially in multiple environments, wait, and measure abundance outcomes. We then train a model to predict outcomes of novel actions or prioritise actions that would yield the most desirable outcomes. Across 10 single- and multi-environment datasets, when trained on 89 randomly selected actions, LOVE predicts outcomes with 0.5%-3.4% mean error, and prioritises actions for maximising richness, maximising abundance, or removing unwanted species, with 94%-99% mean true positive rate and 10%-84% mean true negative rate across tasks. LOVE complements existing mechanism-first approaches for community ecology and may help address numerous applied challenges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".