MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028429536

Exploring and Predicting Plant-Arthropod Interactions: Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities and Graph Neural Network Approaches

2023· dissertation· en· W7028429536 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries and Information Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityEcological networkExtinction (optical mineralogy)Focus (optics)GraphEcosystemArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world's biodiversity is encountering unprecedented threats, with more than one million plant and animal species at risk of extinction as of 2022. In this thesis, we explore the interactions between plants and arthropods, beginning with an investigation of environmental influences on arthropods using joint species distribution modelling. Our results demonstrate that incorporating specific plants significantly improves model performance, highlighting the importance of considering plant diversity when studying arthropod communities. We then focus on predicting plant-arthropod interactions using Graph Neural Networks (GNN) adapted to our dyadic data. Our proposed approach encompasses different model architectures and choices of arthropod features. We find that GNN-based systems achieve moderate performance, which could potentially be improved by integrating higher-quality data and features. Together, the insights gained from the distributional modelling of species communities and GNN models of dyadic data provide a deeper understanding of plant-arthropod interactions and their complex interplay with diverse factors. This research contributes to the broader knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, with potential applications in ecological research and conservation efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.018 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicLibraries and Information ServicesFrench-language works237,207