MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990769357 · doi:10.1890/08-0579.1

On the prediction of extreme ecological events

2009· article· en· W1990769357 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyIntertidal zoneEnvironmental scienceRocky shoreBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological studies often focus on average effects of environmental factors, but ecological dynamics may depend as much upon environmental extremes. Ecology would therefore benefit from the ability to predict the frequency and severity of extreme environmental events. Some extreme events (e.g., earthquakes) are simple events: either they happen or they don't, and they are generally difficult to predict. In contrast, extreme ecological events are often compound events, resulting from the chance coincidence of run‐of‐the‐mill factors. Here we present an environmental bootstrap method for resampling short‐term environmental data (rolling the environmental dice) to calculate an ensemble of hypothetical time series that embodies how the physical environment could potentially play out differently. We use this ensemble in conjunction with mechanistic models of physiological processes to analyze the biological consequences of environmental extremes. Our resampling method provides details of these consequences that would be difficult to obtain otherwise, and our methodology can be applied to a wide variety of ecological systems. Here, we apply this approach to calculate return times for extreme hydrodynamic and thermal events on intertidal rocky shores. Our results demonstrate that the co‐occurrence of normal events can indeed lead to environmental extremes, and that these extremes can cause disturbance. For example, the limpet Lottia gigantea and the mussel Mytilus californianus are co‐dominant competitors for space on wave‐swept rocky shores, but their response to extreme environmental events differ. Limpet mortality can vary drastically through time. Average yearly maximum body temperature of L. gigantea on horizontal surfaces is low, sufficient to kill fewer than 5% of individuals, but on rare occasions environmental factors align by chance to induce temperatures sufficient to kill >99% of limpets. In contrast, mussels do not exhibit large temporal variation in the physical disturbance caused by breaking waves, and this difference in the pattern of disturbance may have ecological consequences for these competing species. The effect of environmental extremes is under added scrutiny as the frequency of extreme events increases in response to anthropogenically forced climate change. Our method can be used to discriminate between chance events and those caused by long‐term shifts in climate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.158 · 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