Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversy on whether local (deterministic) or regional (stochastic) factors control the structure of communities persists after decades of research. The main reason for why it has not been resolved may lie in the nature of evidence which largely comes from realized natural communities. In such communities assembly history leaves a mark that may support either set of factors. To avoid the confounding effects of assembly history we controlled for these effects experimentally. We created a null community by mixing 17 rock pool communities. We then divided the null community into replicates and distributed among treatments representing a gradient of factors from local to regional. We hypothesized that if deterministic factors dominate the assembly of communities, community structures should show a corresponding gradient from being very similar and convergent to dissimilar and divergent. In contrast, if local processes are predominantly stochastic in nature, such a gradient of community configurations should emerge even in the homogeneous setting. Our results appear to partially support both hypotheses and thus suggest that both deterministic and stochastic processes contribute to the assembly of communities. Furthermore, we found that to satisfactorily explain patterns observed in natural communities environmental heterogeneity and regional processes must also be considered. In conclusion, although deterministic mechanisms seem to be important in the assembly of communities, in natural systems their signal may be diluted and masked whenever other factors exert meaningful influence. Such factors increase the number of possible paths to the point that the number of paths equals the number of communities in a metacommunity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".