Complex numerical responses to top–down and bottom–up processes in vertebrate populations
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
Population growth rate is determined in all vertebrate populations by food supplies, and we postulate bottom-up control as the universal primary standard. But this primary control system can be overridden by three secondary controls: top-down processes from predators, social interactions within the species and disturbances. Different combinations of these processes affect population growth rates in different ways. Thus, some relationships between growth rate and density can be hyperbolic or even have multiple nodes. We illustrate some of these in marsupial, ungulate and rabbit populations. Complex interactions between food, predators, environmental disturbance and social behaviour produce the myriad observations of population growth in nature, and we need to develop generalizations to classify populations. Different animal groups differ in the combination of these four processes that affect them, in their growth rates and in their vulnerability to extinction. Because conservation and management of populations depend critically on what factors drive population growth, we need to develop universal generalizations that will relieve us from the need to study every single population before we can make recommendations for management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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