MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006802554 · doi:10.1086/652373

Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology

2010· review· en· W2006802554 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Vellend

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Review of Biology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalEcologyCommunityAbundance (ecology)Genetic algorithmEvolutionary ecologySelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyConceptual frameworkEcological speciationNeutral theory of molecular evolutionSociologyHabitatPopulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community ecology is often perceived as a "mess, "given the seemingly vast number of processes that can underlie the many patterns of interest, and the apparent uniqueness of each study system. However, at the most general level, patterns in the composition and diversity of species--the subject matter of community ecology--are influenced by only four classes of process: selection, drift, speciation, and dispersal. Selection represents deterministic fitness differences among species, drift represents stochastic changes in species abundance, speciation creates new species, and dispersal is the movement of organisms across space. All theoretical and conceptual models in community ecology can be understood with respect to their emphasis on these four processes. Empirical evidence exists for all of these processes and many of their interactions, with a predominance of studies on selection. Organizing the material of community ecology according to this framework can clarify the essential similarities and differences among the many conceptual and theoretical approaches to the discipline, and it can also allow for the articulation of a very general theory of community dynamics: species are added to communities via speciation and dispersal, and the relative abundances of these species are then shaped by drift and selection, as well as ongoing dispersal to drive community dynamics.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2,798
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quarterly Review of BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207