Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Focus: Andersen, A. N. (2019). Responses of ant communities to disturbance: Five principles for understanding the disturbance dynamics of a globally dominant faunal group. Journal of Animal Ecology 88, 350-362. Disturbance is a key driver of ecosystem dynamics. Whereas plant community responses to disturbance are relatively well understood, the same does not hold for animals. With rapid changes affecting our world's ecosystems, predicting the response of important ecological groups to ongoing disturbance should be a focus. In particular, ants are ecosystem engineers that create habitats for other organisms and have a crucial role to play in nutrient cycling. Nevertheless, our understanding of ant community response to disturbance is, at best, fragmented. Moreover, how ant communities respond to disturbance on a global scale appears highly idiosyncratic. The perspective article by Andersen (Journal of Animal Ecology 88, 350-362.) proposes five general principles that can help elucidate ant community response to disturbance. Specifically, this synthesis deepens our understanding of how contemporary disturbances, ecological processes and the evolutionary and biogeographic history of lineages interact to influence ant community structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".