Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 350

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A biologist's guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution

·2007·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Scientists perform experiments and gather data to gain evidence for or against various hypotheses about how the world works. This sounds straightforward, but exactly how we use this data to make quantitative statements about various hypotheses requires a bit more care. In fact, there are two related, but philosophically distinct, approaches to scientific inference. To some extent these two approaches parallel the frequency interpretation and the subjective interpretation of probability. “Classical” statistical analysis is most closely allied with the frequency interpretation, whereas “Bayesian” analysis is allied with the subjective interpretation.

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.44-6894

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 350

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
44-6894-44-6894
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W1571102089
Cited by
350
References
1
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: A biologist's guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.44-6894
The paper
A biologist's guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. (2007). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-6894

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.