MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888601978 · doi:10.1111/ele.13133

Evolutionarily distinct amphibians are disproportionately lost from human‐modified ecosystems

2018· article· en· W2888601978 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan A. Greenberg, Wendy J. Palen, Kayi Chan, Walter Jetz, Arne Ø. Mooers

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAmphibianEcologyBiodiversityBiologyEcosystemHabitatHabitat destructionDiversification (marketing strategy)Grassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans continue to alter terrestrial ecosystems, but our understanding of how biodiversity responds is still limited. Anthropogenic habitat conversion has been associated with the loss of evolutionarily distinct bird species at local scales, but whether this evolutionary pattern holds across other clades is unknown. We collate a global dataset on amphibian assemblages in intact forests and nearby human-modified sites to assess whether evolutionary history influences susceptibility to land conversion. We found that evolutionarily distinct amphibian species are disproportionately lost when forested habitats are converted to alternative land-uses. We tested the hypothesis that grassland-associated amphibian lineages have both higher diversification and are pre-adapted to human landscapes, but found only weak evidence supporting this. The loss of evolutionarily distinct amphibians with land conversion suggests that preserving remnant forests will be vital if we aim to preserve the amphibian tree of life in the face of mounting anthropogenic pressures.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207