Community inertia of Quaternary small mammal assemblages in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the longest running debates in ecology is whether chance or determinism structures biotic communities, and this question is often studied by looking for the presence or absence of community inertia (lack of change) over time or space. Results have been equivocal. We adopted three tactics for a fresh approach: (i) allowing the answer to vary with the geographic, temporal, and taxonomic scale of study, (ii) using appropriate reference points for the amount of inertia in random biological systems, and (iii) using a robust approach for measurement of inertia. We examined fossil assemblages of mammalian communities across almost 1,000,000 years and at sites spanning approximately 3,500 km. We showed that in general there is good evidence for inertia but that the results change in a quantifiable fashion with taxonomic, spatial, and temporal scales. By using neutral theory we place a reference point on the degree of inertia and demonstrate that empirical mammalian communities show greater inertia than neutral communities over time scales >3,000 year. Although our results do not specifically reveal mechanism, they emphasize that deterministic forces are at work in structuring communities over millennia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".