MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120696509 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3319

Geometric analysis of regime shifts in coral reef communities

2021· article· en· W3120696509 on OpenAlexaff
Edward W. Tekwa, Lisa C. McManus, Ariel Greiner, Madhavi A. Colton, Michael M. Webster, Malin L. Pinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNature ConservancyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoral reefAlternative stable stateEcologyDominance (genetics)ReefIntraspecific competitionCoralHabitatCompetition (biology)EcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coral reefs are among the many communities believed to exhibit regime shifts between alternative stable states, single‐species dominance, and coexistence. Proposed drivers of regime shifts include changes in grazing, spatial clustering, and ocean temperature. Here, we distill the dynamic regimes of coral–macroalgal interaction into a three‐dimensional geometry based on stability, akin to thermodynamic phase diagrams of state transitions, to facilitate analysis. Specific regime‐shifting forces can be understood as trajectories through the cubic regime geometry. This geometric perspective allows us to understand multiple forces simultaneously in terms of the stability and persistence of interacting species. For example, in a coral–macroalgal community, grazing on macroalgae leads to alternative stable states when there is no spatial clustering (e.g., high habitat connectivity), while warming decreases coexistence. However, with spatial clustering, grazing promotes coexistence because of elevated local intraspecific competition. The geometry of regime shifts provides a general framework to analyze two‐species communities and can help conservation efforts navigate complexity and abrupt environmental changes.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207