Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,726

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The ecological detective: confronting models with data

·1997·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Preface: Beyond the Null Hypothesis1An Ecological Scenario and the Tools of the Ecological Detective32Alternative Views of the Scientific Method and of Modeling123Probability and Probability Models: Know Your Data394Incidental Catch in Fisheries: Seabirds in the New Zealand Squid Trawl Fishery945The Confrontation: Sum of Squares1066The Evolutionary Ecology of Insect Oviposition Behavior1187The Confrontation: Likelihood and Maximum Likelihood1318Conservation Biology of Wildebeest in the Serengeti1809The Confrontation: Bayesian Goodness of Fit20310Management of Hake Fisheries in Namibia Motivation23511The Confrontation: Understanding How the Best Fit Is Found263AppendixThe Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses281References295Index309

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.35-1501

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,726

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
1997-11-01
Volume
35
Issue
03
Pages
35-1501-35-1501
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W2577040454
Cited by
1,726
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The ecological detective: confronting models with data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.35-1501
The paper
The ecological detective: confronting models with data. (1997). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.35-1501

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.