Unifying sources and sinks in ecology and <scp>E</scp>arth sciences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paired source and sink concepts are used increasingly in ecology and Earth sciences, but they have evolved in divergent directions, hampering communication across disciplines. We propose a conceptual framework that unifies existing definitions, and review their most significant consequences for the various disciplines. A general definition of the source and sink concepts that transcends disciplines is based on net flows between the components of a system: a source is a subsystem that is a net exporter of some living or non-living entities of interest, and a sink is a net importer of these entities. Sources and sinks can further be classified as conditional and unconditional, depending on the intrinsic propensity of subsystems to either produce (source) or absorb (sink) a surplus of these entities under some (conditional) or all (unconditional) conditions. The distinction between conditional and unconditional sources and sinks, however, is strongly context dependent. Sources can turn into sinks, and vice versa, when the context is changed, when systems are subject to temporal fluctuations or evolution, or when they are considered at different spatial and temporal scales. The conservation of ecosystem services requires careful consideration of the source-sink dynamics of multiple ecosystem components. Our synthesis shows that source-sink dynamics has profound consequences for our ability to understand, predict, and manage species and ecosystems in heterogeneous landscapes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it