Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies
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
There is increasing concern that multiple drivers of ecological change will interact synergistically to accelerate biodiversity loss. However, the prevalence and magnitude of these interactions remain one of the largest uncertainties in projections of future ecological change. We address this uncertainty by performing a meta-analysis of 112 published factorial experiments that evaluated the impacts of multiple stressors on animal mortality in freshwater, marine and terrestrial communities. We found that, on average, mortalities from the combined action of two stressors were not synergistic and this result was consistent across studies investigating different stressors, study organisms and life-history stages. Furthermore, only one-third of relevant experiments displayed truly synergistic effects, which does not support the prevailing ecological paradigm that synergies are rampant. However, in more than three-quarters of relevant experiments, the outcome of multiple stressor interactions was non-additive (i.e. synergies or antagonisms), suggesting that ecological surprises may be more common than simple additive effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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