Subsidy hypothesis and strength of trophic cascades across ecosystems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecosystems are differentially open to subsidies of energy, material and organisms. This fundamental ecosystem attribute has long been recognized but the influence of this property on community regulation has not been investigated. We propose that this environmental attribute may explain variation in the strength of trophic cascades among ecosystems. Simply because of gravity, we should predict that systems with convex profiles receive low amounts of subsidies whereas systems with concave profiles act as spatial attractors, and receive high amounts of subsidies. The subsidy hypothesis states that ecosystems with high amounts of allochthonous inputs will experience the strongest trophic cascades. To test this hypothesis, we derive ecosystem models and investigate the effect of location and magnitude of subsidies on the strength of trophic cascades. Predictions from our models support the subsidy hypothesis and highlight the need to consider ecosystems as open to allochthonous flows.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it