MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159210486 · doi:10.1111/ele.12067

Nutritional indicators and their uses in ecology

2013· review· en· W2159210486 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole D. Wagner, Helmut Hillebrand, Alexander Wacker, Paul C. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsEcologyBiologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nutrition of animal consumers is an important regulator of ecological processes due to its effects on their physiology, life-history and behaviour. Understanding the ecological effects of poor nutrition depends on correctly diagnosing the nature and strength of nutritional limitation. Despite the need to assess nutritional limitation, current approaches to delineating nutritional constraints can be non-specific and imprecise. Here, we consider the need and potential to develop new complementary approaches to the study of nutritional constraints on animal consumers by studying and using a suite of established and emerging biochemical and molecular responses. These nutritional indicators include gene expression, transcript regulators, protein profiling and activity, and gross biochemical and elemental composition. The potential applications of nutritional indicators to ecological studies are highlighted to demonstrate the value that this approach would have to future studies in community and ecosystem ecology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207