MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591445725 · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12763

Litter for life: assessing the multifunctional legacy of plant traits

2017· article· en· W2591445725 on OpenAlexfundno aff
André T. C. Dias, Johannes H. C. Cornelissen, Matty P. Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsLitterEcosystemTraitBiodiversityPlant litterEcologyBiologyEcosystem servicesResource Acquisition Is InitializationResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceResource allocation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Litter drives a wide variety of important functions in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. However, the role of litter in regulating community dynamics and ecosystem processes has mostly been studied in terms of litter presence or amount. Besides in biogeochemistry, we still do not know how litters from distinct plant species differ in their effects on other ecosystem processes and services including biodiversity support. We briefly synthesize the multiple litter functions and services by using the afterlife legacy of interspecific variation in plant morphological, physical and chemical traits as a unifying tool. We do so by explicit reference to two highly distinct but possibly interacting ‘trait spectra’: the widely known Resource Economic Spectrum , and the Size and Shape Spectrum , a trait‐based axis ranging from small and relatively simply shaped distal plant organs to large and more intricately shaped ones. Synthesis . Ecosystem services provided by plant litter are driven by either one of the trait spectra or by both. In this way, the Size and Shape Spectrum‐Resource Economic Spectrum concept is a promising tool for understanding and predicting the contributions of different plant species, through the afterlife effects of their litter traits, to various important services in different ecosystems and human contexts.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations70
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207