MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Population Dynamics of Columnar and Other Cacti: A Review

2008· review· en· W2164370281 on OpenAlexaff
Taly Dawn Drezner, Barbi Lynn Lazarus

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCactusBiological dispersalDemographicsPopulationGeographySeed dispersalEcologyScale (ratio)BiologyDemographySociologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we review the population cycles of cacti, with an emphasis on the large, often keystone columnar cacti of the North American deserts. These and many other cacti often experience dramatic increases and declines in their numbers. Seeds that germinate in years that provide favourable conditions for regeneration and subsequently survive establish a cohort. We first review the limitations to estimating the age of any given individual; without this information, we cannot reconstruct the age of a population and reconstruct its age structure and demography. We then discuss the techniques for so doing, the data that are available, and the work that has been carried out on a few limited and isolated populations, primarily of Carnegiea gigantea . We then link century‐scale population fluctuations with micro, local, regional and global climate factors, which include nurse‐plant relationships, periodic freezing and El Niño events, and proceed to elaborate on the factors that influence cactus demographics, such as dispersal, pollination, human impacts and climate change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography CompassSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207