Is ecohydrology missing much of the zoo?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Ecohydrology is now recognized as an interdisciplinary field, and as it grows, there needs to be greater awareness and dialogue on its focus and future direction. To take a ‘bearings’ on where we are, 339 ecohydrological articles published between January 2000 and December 2011 in two databases were surveyed. We found that 72% of the studies address questions at the interface of plant ecology and hydrology. The scarcity of studies of animals as drivers of hydrological patterns and processes led us to question the reasons behind plant‐based ecologists embracing the term ecohydrology to a greater extent than animal‐based ecologists. Following that discussion are current examples of synergies between animal ecologists and hydrologists that have led to a greater understanding of ecosystem processes and a way for ecohydrologists to factor in faunal interactions in their future research. We end by suggesting that ecohydrology form its own scientific society so it can more purposely advance knowledge and understanding of coupled ecological and hydrological system functions. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".