Effects of range size on species–area relationships
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
It has been known for some time that the slope of the species–area relationship increases asymptotically at broad spatial scales when richness is plotted against area on logarithmic axes. At continental to global scales, species–area relationships are determined to a large extent by the abundance and size distribution of species ranges. Here we present an analytical model that explicitly quantifies the effects of range size on species–area relationships. The model shows how range size and plot area interact to control the form of species–area relationships at broad spatial scales. It also demonstrates how changes in spatial scale affect biodiversity patterns by changing the relative influence of range size and range abundance on species richness. Our model provides an explanation for the broad-scale upturn of the species–area relationship, but more work is needed to incorporate the effects of range size, habitat heterogeneity, individual sampling and other variables into a unified framework that can account for species–area relationships at all scales.
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