Achieving higher standards in species distribution modeling by leveraging the diversity of available software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing online availability of biodiversity data and advances in ecological modeling have led to a proliferation of open‐source modeling tools. In particular, R packages for species distribution modeling continue to multiply without guidance on how they can be employed together, resulting in high fidelity of researchers to one or several packages. Here, we assess the wide variety of software for species distribution models (SDMs) and highlight how packages can work together to diversify and expand analyses in each step of a modeling workflow. We also introduce the new R package ‘sdmverse' to catalog metadata for packages, cluster them based on their methodological functions, and visualize their relationships. To demonstrate how pluralism of software use helps improve SDM workflows, we provide three extensive and fully documented analyses that utilize tools for modeling and visualization from multiple packages, then score these tutorials according to recent methodological standards. We end by identifying gaps in the capabilities of current tools and highlighting outstanding challenges in the development of software for SDMs.
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 | 0.087 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".