MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992138241 · doi:10.2989/00306525.2014.901432

Responses of the Serengeti avifauna to long-term change in the environment

2014· article· en· W1992138241 on OpenAlexaff
A. R. E. Sinclair, Ally K. Nkwabi, Simon Mduma, Flora J. Magige

Bibliographic record

VenueOstrich · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersZoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt
KeywordsBiodiversityEcologyHabitatEcosystemTrophic levelHabitat destructionClimate changeGeographyHabitat fragmentationEnvironmental changeContext (archaeology)Fragmentation (computing)PredationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we examine how climate change interacts with other disturbances to alter the functioning of a tropical ecosystem, the Serengeti in Tanzania. Tropical Africa has increasing temperatures and changes in rainfall. Long-term data have shown how the avifauna responds to the interaction of environmental change with other disturbances: (1) habitat modification through agriculture by limiting endemic species and top trophic levels. Rare species are lost so this is a problem for conservation. Top trophic levels are lost and the lack of predators then releases pests. This is a problem for natural resource management. (2) Disease and hunting cause slow change in the species complex. This can alter community dynamics depending on which species enter or leave. (3) Habitat fragmentation or decay can cause slow change. When this reaches a threshold there may be rapid change in the species composition causing multiple states. One lesson is that present-day ecosystem states and trends can only be understood in the context of past historical events. Another is that all systems change so this requires a new approach to conservation. Within protected areas, new boundaries or new areas will be required. Outside rewilding is required to support more biodiversity.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOstrichSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207