MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028324969 · doi:10.1242/jeb.039511

Global warming and the Arctic: a new world beyond the reach of the Grinnellian niche?

2010· article· en· W2028324969 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Glen M. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompany of BiologistsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubarctic climateClimate changeGlobal warmingEcologyNichePhenologyArcticBiotaEnvironmental scienceLatitudeArctic ecologyAbundance (ecology)BiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The levels of CO(2) in the atmosphere have already far exceeded values attained at any other time over at least the past 650,000 years. Temperature increases due to rising greenhouse gases will be amplified in Arctic and subarctic regions, and winter warming will be enhanced relative to summer warming. Climate in large areas of high latitudes may have no analogue in current climates or those of the recent geological past. Experimental field manipulations and laboratory studies indicate that plants will exhibit complex responses in photosynthesis, growth rates, phenology and reproductive functioning due to this combination of increasing temperatures, changing seasonality and increasing levels of CO(2). The resulting changes in the abundance, distribution, growth rates and production of fruit and phenology of plant species will in turn impact animal populations. In predicting what the future biota of the 'New Arctic' will be like and developing appropriate conservation strategies, Grinnellian niche-based approaches are likely to be insufficient, and experimental ecological studies of organism response to specific anticipated changes in climate are crucial.

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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207