MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Lilliput to Brobdingnag: Extending Models of Mycorrhizal Function across Scales

2006· article· en· W2141704722 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Guelph
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBiological and Environmental ResearchUniversity of California, Santa Barbara
KeywordsEcosystemEcologyTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementSustainabilityGlobal changeTemporal scalesPopulationScale (ratio)Ecosystem servicesProductivityEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycorrhizae occur in nearly all terrestrial ecosystems. Resource exchange between host plants and mycorrhizal fungi influences community, ecosystem, and even global patterns and processes. Understanding the mechanisms and consequences of mycorrhizal symbioses across a hierarchy of scales will help predict system responses to environmental change and facilitate the management of these responses for sustainability and productivity. Conceptual and mathematical models have been developed to help understand and predict mycorrhizal functions. These models are most developed for individual- and population-scale processes, but models at community, ecosystem, and global scales are also beginning to emerge. We review seven types of mycorrhizal models that vary in their scale of resolution and dynamics, and discuss approaches for integrating these models with each other and with general models of terrestrial ecosystems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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