MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074146718 · doi:10.1890/06-1107.1

THE INFLATIONARY EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLUCTUATIONS ENSURE THE PERSISTENCE OF SINK METAPOPULATIONS

2007· article· en· W2074146718 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Matthews, Andrew Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetapopulationSink (geography)EcologyPersistence (discontinuity)HabitatPopulationOccupancyBiologyEnvironmental changeEnvironmental scienceGeographyClimate changeBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under current rates of environmental change many populations may be found in habitats of low quality and low conservation value, creating population sinks. We test recent theory that suggests, surprisingly, that stochastic environmental variability may enhance the long-term persistence of sink metapopulations. Using experimental populations of Paramecium aurelia we show that it is possible for a metapopulation comprised entirely of sink populations to persist for many generations in a random environment. In accordance with the theory, we show that positive temporal autocorrelation and low spatial correlation in the environment can ensure the long-term persistence and enhance the mean and maximum abundance of sink metapopulations. High levels of spatial correlation in the environment created strong population synchrony and limited the persistence time of the sink metapopulations. These results have important implications for the development of a theory underlying the synergistic effects of habitat fragmentation and environmental change on population persistence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations98
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207