MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899083683 · doi:10.1111/ele.13162

Towards a multi‐trophic extension of metacommunity ecology

2018· article· en· W2899083683 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Melissa Guzman, Rachel M. Germain, Coreen Forbes, Samantha Straus, Mary I. O’Connor, Dominique Gravel, Diane S. Srivastava, Patrick L. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMetacommunityTrophic levelEcologySpatial ecologyBiological dispersalInterspecific competitionSpatial analysisForagingBiologyGeographyPopulationRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metacommunity theory provides an understanding of how spatial processes determine the structure and function of communities at local and regional scales. Although metacommunity theory has considered trophic dynamics in the past, it has been performed idiosyncratically with a wide selection of possible dynamics. Trophic metacommunity theory needs a synthesis of a few influential axis to simplify future predictions and tests. We propose an extension of metacommunity ecology that addresses these shortcomings by incorporating variability among trophic levels in 'spatial use properties'. We define 'spatial use properties' as a set of traits (dispersal, migration, foraging and spatial information processing) that set the spatial and temporal scales of organismal movement, and thus scales of interspecific interactions. Progress towards a synthetic predictive framework can be made by (1) documenting patterns of spatial use properties in natural food webs and (2) using theory and experiments to test how trophic structure in spatial use properties affects metacommunity dynamics.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations108
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207