MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How useful is the concept of habitat? – a critique

2005· article· en· W2080331648 on OpenAlexaff
S.C. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatArgument (complex analysis)AppealValue (mathematics)Class (philosophy)PopulationEcologyEpistemologyPoint (geometry)GeographyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyComputer scienceBiologyPolitical scienceMathematicsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following argument regarding the quantitative value of the habitat concept is presented for discussion purposes. The discussion is not intended as a review of the habitat‐population literature (which is immense for any class of organism) and so does not include an exhaustive appeal to authority. Instead, the arguments are, largely, intended to stand or fall on their own merit, and the literature is used selectively to demonstrate a point.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.065
Scholarly communication0.0090.022
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations100
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207