MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495603681 · doi:10.1111/evo.13030

Ephemeral ecological speciation and the latitudinal biodiversity gradient

2016· article· en· W2495603681 on OpenAlexafffund
Asher D. Cutter, Jeremy C. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyEphemeral keyGenetic algorithmBiodiversityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The richness of biodiversity in the tropics compared to high-latitude parts of the world forms one of the most globally conspicuous patterns in biology, and yet few hypotheses aim to explain this phenomenon in terms of explicit microevolutionary mechanisms of speciation and extinction. We link population genetic processes of selection and adaptation to speciation and extinction by way of their interaction with environmental factors to drive global scale macroecological patterns. High-latitude regions are both cradle and grave with respect to species diversification. In particular, we point to a conceptual equivalence of "environmental harshness" and "hard selection" as eco-evolutionary drivers of local adaptation and ecological speciation. By describing how ecological speciation likely occurs more readily at high latitudes, with such nascent species especially prone to extinction by fusion, we derive the ephemeral ecological speciation hypothesis as an integrative mechanistic explanation for latitudinal gradients in species turnover and the net accumulation of biodiversity.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations71
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207