MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052840068 · doi:10.1073/pnas.221275198

Phase coupling and synchrony in the spatiotemporal dynamics of muskrat and mink populations across Canada

2001· article· en· W2052840068 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel T. Haydon, Nils Chr. Stenseth, Mark S. Boyce, Priscilla E. Greenwood

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMinkPopulationCoupling (piping)Series (stratigraphy)Variation (astronomy)BiologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyGeographyDemographyPaleontologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population ecologists have traditionally focused on the patterns and causes of population variation in the temporal domain for which a substantial body of practical analytic techniques have been developed. More recently, numerous studies have documented how populations may fluctuate synchronously over large spatial areas; analyses of such spatially extended time-series have started to provide additional clues regarding the causes of these population fluctuations and explanations for their synchronous occurrence. Here, we report on the development of a phase-based method for identifying coupling between temporally coincident but spatially distributed cyclic time-series, which we apply to the numbers of muskrat and mink recorded at 81 locations across Canada. The analysis reveals remarkable parallel clines in the strength of coupling between proximate populations of both species--declining from west to east--together with a corresponding increase in observed synchrony between these populations the further east they are located.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207