MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136554890 · doi:10.1890/04-0770

MORAN EFFECT ON NONLINEAR POPULATION PROCESSES

2005· article· en· W2136554890 on OpenAlex
T. Royama

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurious relationshipMathematicsStatisticsNonlinear systemAutocorrelationDensity dependencePopulationDegree (music)Variance (accounting)Statistical physicsRegressionLinear regressionEconometricsApplied mathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I investigate the efficacy of the Moran effect as applied to natural population processes. The Moran effect, the correlated density‐independent disturbances that bring independently oscillating local populations into synchrony, was originally conceived as an attribute of a linear model system. However, it applies only approximately to natural populations, as they are inherently nonlinear in their density‐dependent structure, given that no animal has an unlimited reproductive capacity. The degree of approximation, as measured by the degree of correlation among populations involved, is shown to depend, given the density‐dependent structure, on the variances of the random disturbances. In particular, if the unperturbed density‐dependent process converges to an equilibrium density, approximation is good when the variances are equal among the populations involved and comparatively small, but it worsens as the variances and their differences increase. For those processes that do not converge, when unperturbed, but exhibit bounded oscillations, the degree of approximation tends to deteriorate considerably, or may practically collapse, even if the disturbances are not large in variance. A sample correlation coefficient is often spurious if the observed population processes to be correlated are highly autocorrelated and limited in length. To detect spuriousness, the density‐independent disturbances must somehow be estimated from the data. Three methods (moving‐average, linear regression, and nonlinear regression) are considered, and their merits and demerits are discussed. Results of the present investigation are summarized with respect to the interpretations (or diagnoses) of sample cross‐correlation functions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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