Climate change and species interactions: ways forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With ongoing and rapid climate change, ecologists are being challenged to predict how individual species will change in abundance and distribution, how biotic communities will change in structure and function, and the consequences of these climate-induced changes for ecosystem functioning. It is now well documented that indirect effects of climate change on species abundances and distributions, via climatic effects on interspecific interactions, can outweigh and even reverse the direct effects of climate. However, a clear framework for incorporating species interactions into projections of biological change remains elusive. To move forward, we suggest three priorities for the research community: (1) utilize tractable study systems as case studies to illustrate possible outcomes, test processes highlighted by theory, and feed back into modeling efforts; (2) develop a robust analytical framework that allows for better cross-scale linkages; and (3) determine over what time scales and for which systems prediction of biological responses to climate change is a useful and feasible goal. We end with a list of research questions that can guide future research to help understand, and hopefully mitigate, the negative effects of climate change on biota and the ecosystem services they provide.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".