MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915145685 · doi:10.1111/jpy.12845

Individuality in seaweeds and why we need to care

2019· review· en· W2915145685 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle Demes, Jonathan N. Pruitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEcologyVariation (astronomy)Evolutionary ecologyIntraspecific competitionEvolutionary biologyHeritability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Documenting the causes and consequences of intraspecific variation forms the foundation of much of evolutionary ecology. In this Perspectives piece, we review the importance of individual variation in ecology and evolution, argue that contemporary phycology often overlooks this foundational biological unit, and highlight how this lack of attention has potentially constrained our understanding of seaweeds. We then provide some suggestions of promising but underrepresented approaches, for instance: conducting more studies and analyses at the level of the individual; designing studies to evaluate heritability and genetic regulation of traits; and measuring associations between individual variation in functional traits and ecological outcomes. We close by highlighting areas of phycological research (e.g., population biology, ecology, aquaculture, climate change management) that could benefit immediately from including a focus on individual variation. Algae, for their part, provide us with a powerful and diverse set of ecological and evolutionary traits to explore these topics. There is much to be discovered.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207