A Method for Quantifying Consistency in Animal Distributions Using Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree of consistency with which groups of animals use the landscape is determined by a variety of ecological processes that influence their movements and patterns of habitat use.We developed a technique termed Distributional Consistency that uses survey data of unmarked individuals to quantify temporal consistency in their spatial distribution, while accounting for changes in population size.Distributional consistency is quantified by comparing the observed distribution patterns to all theoretically possible distribution patterns of observed individuals, leading to a proportional score between 0 and 1, reflecting increasingly consistent use of sites within a region.The technique can be applied to survey data for any taxa across a range of spatial and temporal scales.We suggest ways in which distributional consistency could provide inferences about the dispersal and habitat decisions of individuals, and the scales at which these decisions operate.Distributional consistency integrates spatial and temporal processes to quantify an important characteristic of different habitats and their use by populations, which in turn will be particularly useful in complimenting and interpreting other ecological measures such as population density and stability.The technique can be applied to many existing data sets to investigate and evaluate a range of important ecological questions using simple survey data.
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 | 0.021 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".