MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating life‐history strategies of reef corals from species traits

2012· article· en· W2091692960 on OpenAlexaff
Emily S. Darling, Lorenzo Álvarez‐Filip, Thomas A. Oliver, Tim R. McClanahan, Isabelle M. Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesThreatened speciesLife history theoryCoral reefReefCommunityScleractiniaTraitTaxonLife historyCoralHabitatCnidaria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifying the biological traits of organisms can test conceptual frameworks of life-history strategies and allow for predictions of how different species may respond to environmental disturbances. We apply a trait-based classification approach to a complex and threatened group of species, scleractinian corals. Using hierarchical clustering and random forests analyses, we identify up to four life-history strategies that appear globally consistent across 143 species of reef corals: competitive, weedy, stress-tolerant and generalist taxa, which are primarily separated by colony morphology, growth rate and reproductive mode. Documented shifts towards stress-tolerant, generalist and weedy species in coral reef communities are consistent with the expected responses of these life-history strategies. Our quantitative trait-based approach to classifying life-history strategies is objective, applicable to any taxa and a powerful tool that can be used to evaluate theories of community ecology and predict the impact of environmental and anthropogenic stressors on species assemblages.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations784
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207