MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209447015 · doi:10.1007/s11538-015-0129-x

Approximating the Critical Domain Size of Integrodifference Equations

2015· article· en· W2209447015 on OpenAlexafffund
Jody R. Reimer, Michael B. Bonsall, Philip K. Maini

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Mathematical Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRhodes Scholarships
KeywordsDisperserBiological dispersalDomain (mathematical analysis)AdvectionPersistence (discontinuity)Computer scienceHabitatStatistical physicsMathematicsApplied mathematicsEcologyPhysicsMathematical analysisBiologyGeologyCombinatoricsDemographyPopulationGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrodifference (IDE) models can be used to determine the critical domain size required for persistence of populations with distinct dispersal and growth phases. Using this modelling framework, we develop a novel spatially implicit approximation to the proportion of individuals lost to unfavourable habitat outside of a finite domain of favourable habitat, which consistently outperforms the most common approximations. We explore how results using this approximation compare to the existing IDE results on the critical domain size for populations in a single patch of good habitat, in a network of patches, in the presence of advection, and in structured populations. We find that the approximation consistently provides results which are in close agreement with those of an IDE model except in the face of strong advective forces, with the advantage of requiring fewer numerical approximations while providing insights into the significance of disperser retention in determining the critical domain size of an IDE.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.336
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Mathematical BiologySame topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsFrench-language works237,207