MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288500112 · doi:10.1007/s10021-016-9967-0

Frontiers in Ecosystem Ecology from a Community Perspective: The Future is Boundless and Bright

2016· article· en· W2288500112 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen C. Weathers, Peter M. Groffman, Elizabeth Van Dolah, Emily S. Bernhardt, Nancy B. Grimm, Kathryn McMahon, J. Schimel, Michael Paolisso, Roxane Maranger, Sara G. Baer, Kate A. Brauman, Eve‐Lyn S. Hinckley

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosystems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNational Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcosystemEcologyMultidisciplinary approachDisciplineEcosystem ecologyFunction (biology)Citizen sciencePerspective (graphical)Process (computing)EthnographyFunctional ecologySociologyGeographySocial scienceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era of increasingly multidisciplinary science, it is essential to identify the frontiers as well as the core of an inherently holistic discipline: ecosystem ecology. To achieve this, we led a series of town hall events at multiple scientific-society meetings over a two-year period followed by a workshop with a diverse set of ecosystem scientists to review and expand on those outcomes. For the society town hall events ~70 individuals were asked to give short, provocative (the so-called, soapbox) presentations and audience members (~250) filled out tailored surveys. Both presentations and surveys were transcribed and themes were extracted and analyzed before and during the follow-up workshop. Formal ethnographic analysis of the soapbox texts produced three major themes: “frontiers,” “capacity building,” and “barriers to implementation,” including several subthemes. A workshop was held to analyze the ethnographic data where workshop participants further grouped key frontiers as (1) rethinking the drivers of ecosystem change, (2) new insights into ecosystem process and function, (3) evaluating human dimensions of ecosystem ecology, and (4) new angles on problem-solving/applied research. In addition, 13 experts were interviewed to crosscheck interpretations. The survey data, workshop deliberations, and expert interviews suggest that the core of these frontiers defines the current state and provides the foundational knowledge that bounds ecosystem ecology as a discipline. In response to emerging complex environmental issues and ongoing socioecological challenges, the edges of these frontiers expand fundamental ecosystem ecology to engage and intersect with disciplinary realms to create new ways of making sense of complexity, and to develop an even more holistic understanding of ecological systems. In this paper, we present our synthesis of the frontier and core research themes with the goal of inspiring the next wave of studies in 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.059
Scholarly communication0.0260.047
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosystemsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207