MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504996224 · doi:10.1002/ece3.2339

Early warning signals detect critical impacts of experimental warming

2016· article· en· W2504996224 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren Jarvis, Kevin S. McCann, Tyler D. Tunney, Gabriel Gellner, John M. Fryxell

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWarning systemPopulationClimate changeEnvironmental scienceGlobal warmingExtinction (optical mineralogy)TraitEcosystemBiodiversityClimatologyEcologyComputer scienceBiologyGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earth's surface temperatures are projected to increase by ~1-4°C over the next century, threatening the future of global biodiversity and ecosystem stability. While this has fueled major progress in the field of physiological trait responses to warming, it is currently unclear whether routine population monitoring data can be used to predict temperature-induced population collapse. Here, we integrate trait performance theory with that of critical tipping points to test whether early warning signals can be reliably used to anticipate thermally induced extinction events. We find that a model parameterized by experimental growth rates exhibits critical slowing down in the vicinity of an experimentally tested critical threshold, suggesting that dynamical early warning signals may be useful in detecting the potentially precipitous onset of population collapse due to global 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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207