MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216690861 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13799

Bridging the scale gap: Predicting large‐scale population dynamics from small‐scale variation in strongly heterogeneous landscapes

2021· article· en· W3216690861 on OpenAlexafffund
Christina A. Cobbold, Frithjof Lutscher, Brian P. Yurk

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScale (ratio)Bridging (networking)PopulationDynamics (music)Variation (astronomy)GeographyComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsCartographyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Often, ecologists are challenged with a mismatch of scales: how do we upscale from local variation and available data to landscape‐level models and predictions? We present a general recipe for coarse‐graining from local‐ to landscape‐scale reaction–diffusion equations when spatial heterogeneity is small in extent compared to dispersal of organisms. Our homogenization approach uses the fundamental ecological concepts of Turchin's residence index and Skellam's dynamic level . Our approach opens avenues to new ecological theory that connects different scales, which we illustrate using predator–prey interactions. It also presents opportunities for using the increasingly available small‐scale data for landscape‐level predictions, such as range expansion rates. We find several unexpected nonlinear relationships between the movement behaviour on the local level and the spatially implicit and explicit outcomes at the landscape level, for example, predator spread rate may increase or decrease when predators move faster locally. Our method provides a mechanistic link for population dynamics and data integration across spatial and temporal scales, addressing a fundamental goal of landscape ecology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207