Towards a unified study of multiple stressors: divisions and common goals across research disciplines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic environmental changes, or 'stressors', increasingly threaten biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Multiple-stressor research is a rapidly expanding field of science that seeks to understand and ultimately predict the interactions between stressors. Reviews and meta-analyses of the primary scientific literature have largely been specific to either freshwater, marine or terrestrial ecology, or ecotoxicology. In this cross-disciplinary study, we review the state of knowledge within and among these disciplines to highlight commonality and division in multiple-stressor research. Our review goes beyond a description of previous research by using quantitative bibliometric analysis to identify the division between disciplines and link previously disconnected research communities. Towards a unified research framework, we discuss the shared goal of increased realism through both ecological and temporal complexity, with the overarching aim of improving predictive power. In a rapidly changing world, advancing our understanding of the cumulative ecological impacts of multiple stressors is critical for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. Identifying and overcoming the barriers to interdisciplinary knowledge exchange is necessary in rising to this challenge. Division between ecosystem types and disciplines is largely a human creation. Species and stressors cross these borders and so should the scientists who study them.
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 | 0.111 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".