Data from: Approaches to integrating genetic data into ecological networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As molecular tools for assessing trophic interactions become common, research is increasingly focused on the construction of interaction networks. Here we demonstrate three key methods for incorporating DNA data into network ecology and discuss analytical considerations using a model consisting of plants, insects, bats and their parasites from the Costa Rican dry forest. The simplest method involves the use of Sanger sequencing to acquire long sequences to validate or refine field identifications, for example of bats and their parasites, where one specimen yields one sequence and one identification. This method can be fully quantified and resolved and these data resemble traditional ecological networks. For more complex taxonomic identifications, we target multiple DNA loci e.g. from a seed or fruit pulp sample in faeces. These networks are also well resolved but gene targets vary in resolution and quantification is difficult. Finally for mixed templates such as faecal contents of insectivorous bats we use DNA metabarcoding targeting two sequence lengths (157bp, 407bp) of one gene region and a MOTU, BLAST and BIN association approach to resolve nodes. This network type is complex to generate and analyse and we discuss the implications of this type of resolution on network analysis. Using these data we construct the first molecular-based network of networks containing 3304 interactions between 762 nodes of 8 trophic functions and involving parasitic, mutualistic, and predatory interactions. We provide a comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these data types in network ecology.
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 | 0.025 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".