MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The succession of minima in the abundance of species

2010· article· en· W1975480086 on OpenAlexafffund
Graham Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcological successionAbundance (ecology)PopulationBiologyEcologyRelative species abundancePopulation sizeBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the leading ecological and evolutionary characteristics of populations are governed by their effective population size, which in turn is strongly influenced by the minimum census size. The succession of minima of increasing rank R in time is described by the expected value of the next minimum ω R and by the expected time T R elapsing before it occurs. The relationships of ω R and T R with R together determine the minimal population expected to be encountered within a given period of time. These relationships depend on the dynamic model for species abundance. The four main types of model investigated here have characteristically different successions. – Random: ω R log‐linear and T R log‐linear on R; – Forced: ω R linear and T R log‐linear on R; – Neutral community: ω R linear and T R linear on R; – Foodweb: ω R log‐linear and T R linear on R; Data on species abundance in long‐term surveys of plankton communities suggests that the Foodweb model best represents nature. This implies that each species is likely to encounter new minima on time‐scales much shorter than species longevity. Either local selection and dispersal or large population size may help to alleviate frequent bottlenecks, but it is likely that the internal dynamics of trophically structured communities may lead to continual change in species composition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207