MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772905060 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2005

Ecological surprise: concept, synthesis, and social dimensions

2017· article· en· W2772905060 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Filbee‐Dexter, Jeremy Pittman, Heather A. Haig, Steven M. Alexander, Celia C. Symons, Matthew J. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of ReginaUniversity of WaterlooDalhousie University
FundersNational Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSurpriseEcologyConceptualizationEcosystemEcological systems theoryHeuristicsEnvironmental resource managementPsychologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceSocial psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the extent and intensity of human impacts on ecosystems increase and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb these impacts dwindles, unanticipated behavior in ecological systems—or surprises—is likely to become more common. The concept of ecological surprise is broadly applied but seldom explicitly developed in ecological literature, and ecologists can employ diverging language, frameworks, and interpretations of surprise. Here, we synthesize what ecological surprise has meant to ecologists studying these events and review the development and use of the concept in ecology. We define ecological surprise as a situation where human expectations or predictions of natural system behavior deviate from observed ecosystem behavior. This can occur when people (1) fail to anticipate change in ecosystems; (2) fail to influence ecosystem behavior as intended; or (3) discover something about an ecosystem that runs counter to accepted knowledge. We develop a conceptual model that captures the interactions between social and ecological processes that lead to these events and examine two types of drivers that contribute to surprise: underlying driving forces and proximate causes. Our definition of ecological surprise inherently acknowledges that, to be surprising, there must be human observers to the ecological occurrence who have expectations about ecosystem behavior. To explore this dimension, we draw on social science perspectives to understand the ways in which human expectations of ecosystems are influenced by social networks, heuristics, and mental models. We use a case study to demonstrate how our integrated conceptualization of ecological surprise provides a systematic way of examining these events. Our integration of these perspectives enables us to better synthesize social and ecological knowledge of these events, and encourages ecologists to critically reflect on how they, as scientists, formulate and reformulate expectations of ecosystem behavior.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations59
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207