MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528514058 · doi:10.1111/eva.12436

Understanding and monitoring the consequences of human impacts on intraspecific variation

2016· review· en· W2528514058 on OpenAlexaff
M. Mimura, Tetsukazu Yahara, Daniel P. Faith, Ella Vázquez‐Domínguez, Robert I. Colautti, Hitoshi Araki, Firouzeh Javadi, Juan Núñez‐Farfán, Akira Mori, Shiliang Zhou, Peter M. Hollingsworth, Linda E. Neaves, Yuya Fukano, Gideon F. Smith, Yo‐Ichiro Sato, Hidenori Tachida, Andrew P. Hendry

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Applications · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQueen's University
FundersMinistry of the Environment, Government of JapanJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsIntraspecific competitionBiologyVariation (astronomy)BiodiversityEcologyGenetic variationPopulationEnvironmental changeRange (aeronautics)Psychological resilienceClimate changeEvolutionary biologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraspecific variation is a major component of biodiversity, yet it has received relatively little attention from governmental and nongovernmental organizations, especially with regard to conservation plans and the management of wild species. This omission is ill-advised because phenotypic and genetic variations within and among populations can have dramatic effects on ecological and evolutionary processes, including responses to environmental change, the maintenance of species diversity, and ecological stability and resilience. At the same time, environmental changes associated with many human activities, such as land use and climate change, have dramatic and often negative impacts on intraspecific variation. We argue for the need for local, regional, and global programs to monitor intraspecific genetic variation. We suggest that such monitoring should include two main strategies: (i) intensive monitoring of multiple types of genetic variation in selected species and (ii) broad-brush modeling for representative species for predicting changes in variation as a function of changes in population size and range extent. Overall, we call for collaborative efforts to initiate the urgently needed monitoring of intraspecific variation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations234
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary ApplicationsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207