MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461282777 · doi:10.1111/ele.12628

A life‐history perspective on the demographic drivers of structured population dynamics in changing environments

2016· article· en· W2461282777 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David N. Koons, David T. Iles, Michael Schaub, Hal Caswell

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMax-Planck-Institut für demografische ForschungDucks Unlimited Canada
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)EcologyPopulationDynamics (music)Life historyGeographyLife history theoryBiologyEnvironmental resource managementDemographyPsychologyEnvironmental scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current understanding of life-history evolution and how demographic parameters contribute to population dynamics across species is largely based on assumptions of either constant environments or stationary environmental variation. Meanwhile, species are faced with non-stationary environmental conditions (changing mean, variance, or both) created by climate and landscape change. To close the gap between contemporary reality and demographic theory, we develop a set of transient life table response experiments (LTREs) for decomposing realised population growth rates into contributions from specific vital rates and components of population structure. Using transient LTREs in a theoretical framework, we reveal that established concepts in population biology will require revision because of reliance on approaches that do not address the influence of unstable population structure on population growth and mean fitness. Going forward, transient LTREs will enhance understanding of demography and improve the explanatory power of models used to understand ecological and evolutionary dynamics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations124
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207