MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068275479 · doi:10.1890/06-1381.1

DEFINING AND MEASURING THE IMPACT OF DYNAMIC TRAITS ON INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS

2007· article· en· W2068275479 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyTraitEcologyInterspecific competitionPredationTerm (time)BiologyPopulationComputer scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trait- and density-mediated indirect effects describe different pathways by which indirect interactions in food webs are propagated from one species to another, through changes in intermediate species. A series of articles in Ecology has progressively altered the original definitions of "trait-mediated" to the point where understanding is being impeded. The most recent of these articles are two meta-analyses that use "trait-mediated" to describe the demographic costs to a prey species of employing anti-predator defenses. These same articles introduce a companion term, "density-mediated interaction", apparently to describe direct and indirect interactions that only involve changes in population density due to consumption by predators. This new terminology has many disadvantages, including (1) using a general term for a relatively narrow group of processes; (2) using "mediated" in a manner inconsistent with existing terminology; (3) confusing the accepted definitions of different types of indirect effects; and (4) providing a highly incomplete measure of the impact of behavior on the predator-prey interaction. Solutions to these problems and the meaning of the meta-analyses are discussed.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations114
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207