MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610632796 · doi:10.1111/ele.12789

Moving forward in circles: challenges and opportunities in modelling population cycles

2017· review· en· W2610632796 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédéric Barraquand, Stilianos Louca, Karen C. Abbott, Christina A. Cobbold, Flora Cordoleani, Donald L. DeAngelis, Bret D. Elderd, Jeremy W. Fox, Priscilla E. Greenwood, Frank M. Hilker, Dennis L. Murray, Christopher R. Stieha, Rachel A. Taylor, Kelsey Vitense, Gail S. K. Wolkowicz, Rebecca C. Tyson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityTrent UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcologyPopulationPopulation cycleEcological systems theoryPopulation ecologyMultitudePairwise comparisonResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementBiologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population cycling is a widespread phenomenon, observed across a multitude of taxa in both laboratory and natural conditions. Historically, the theory associated with population cycles was tightly linked to pairwise consumer-resource interactions and studied via deterministic models, but current empirical and theoretical research reveals a much richer basis for ecological cycles. Stochasticity and seasonality can modulate or create cyclic behaviour in non-intuitive ways, the high-dimensionality in ecological systems can profoundly influence cycling, and so can demographic structure and eco-evolutionary dynamics. An inclusive theory for population cycles, ranging from ecosystem-level to demographic modelling, grounded in observational or experimental data, is therefore necessary to better understand observed cyclical patterns. In turn, by gaining better insight into the drivers of population cycles, we can begin to understand the causes of cycle gain and loss, how biodiversity interacts with population cycling, and how to effectively manage wildly fluctuating populations, all of which are growing domains of ecological research.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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

Citations126
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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