MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133389832 · doi:10.1139/b04-055

The dynamics of symbiosis: an historical overview

2004· article· en· W2133389832 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutualism (biology)SymbiosisEcologyBiologySketchParasitismEvolutionary ecologyEpistemologyCognitive scienceEvolutionary biologyComputer sciencePsychologyPhilosophyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two facets of symbiosis theory are discussed: the role of symbiosis in evolution and the evolution and ecology of symbiosis. Research on symbiosis developed in virtual conflict with the aims and doctrines of the major biological disciplines for most of the 20th century. To gain a better understanding of this aspect of biology, I briefly sketch some of the phenomena and issues that have shaped discourse over its scope and significance. Diverse explanations for the various relations exhibited by symbiosis have been proposed from the 19th century to the present. The usefulness of the word itself has been debated, and its anthropomorphisms have been discussed. Research on mycorrhizas has been paradigmatic for revealing the dynamic nature of symbiosis and the inherent complexities of cost–benefit accounting across the parasitism–mutualism continuum.Key words: ecology, evolution, parasitism, mutualism, mycorrhizas, symbiosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it