MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Black Swan Event Drives Eco-Evolutionary Heterogeneity

2019· dataset· en· W3096964957 on OpenAlexafffund
Denon Start

Bibliographic record

VenueAuthorea · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEcologyBlack swan theoryEvolutionary ecologyBiologyNatural selectionEnvironmental changeClimate changeGeographySelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental variation is a constant. Difficult to predict but important ‘Black Swan’ events are increasing in frequency and magnitude, but we are only beginning to understand the ecological and evolutionary consequences of such events. Extreme events can increase or decrease eco-evolutionary heterogeneity depending on the spatial grain at which they occur. Here I present a 6-year study of 3000+ individual univoltine gall makers and their enemies from 15 populations. An extreme event in one generation homogenized a key environmental determinant of enemy attack rates and survival, but exposed gall makers to an alternative environmental driver of ecological interactions. Counterintuitively, rather than acting as an ecological or evolutionary filter, extreme events can create greater spatial variation in demography, species interactions, natural selection, and evolutionary change. I suggest that the eco-evolutionary consequences of Black Swan events can only be understood by considering the evolutionary outcome of what are often complex species interactions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.009

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAuthoreaSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207