Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand why population growth rate is sometimes positive and sometimes negative, ecologists have adopted two main approaches. The most common approach is through the density paradigm by plotting population growth rate against population density. The second approach is through the mechanistic paradigm by plotting population growth rate against the relevant ecological processes affecting the population. The density paradigm is applied a posteriori, works sometimes but not always and is remarkably useless in solving management problems or in providing an understanding of why populations change in size. The mechanistic paradigm investigates the factors that supposedly drive density changes and is identical to Caughley's declining population paradigm of conservation biology. The assumption that we can uncover invariant relationships between population growth rate and some other variables is an article of faith. Numerous commercial fishery applications have failed to find the invariant relationships between stock and recruitment that are predicted by the density paradigm. Environmental variation is the rule, and non-equilibrial dynamics should force us to look for the mechanisms of population change. If multiple factors determine changes in population density, there can be no predictability in either of these paradigms and we will become environmental historians rather than scientists with useful generalizations for the population problems of this century. Defining our questions clearly and adopting an experimental approach with crisp alternative hypotheses and adequate controls will be essential to building useful generalizations for solving the practical problems of population management in fisheries, wildlife and conservation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".