Temporal ecology in the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two fundamental axes - space and time - shape ecological systems. Over the last 30 years spatial ecology has developed as an integrative, multidisciplinary science that has improved our understanding of the ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss. We argue that accelerating climate change - the effective manipulation of time by humans - has generated a current need to build an equivalent framework for temporal ecology. Climate change has at once pressed ecologists to understand and predict ecological dynamics in non-stationary environments, while also challenged fundamental assumptions of many concepts, models and approaches. However, similarities between space and time, especially related issues of scaling, provide an outline for improving ecological models and forecasting of temporal dynamics, while the unique attributes of time, particularly its emphasis on events and its singular direction, highlight where new approaches are needed. We emphasise how a renewed, interdisciplinary focus on time would coalesce related concepts, help develop new theories and methods and guide further data collection. The next challenge will be to unite predictive frameworks from spatial and temporal ecology to build robust forecasts of when and where environmental change will pose the largest threats to species and ecosystems, as well as identifying the best opportunities for conservation.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".