Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of ecosystem, like many ecological concepts that have come down to us from the early developments in ecology, has a rather elusive meaning. A. G. Tansley's (1935) original definition of ecosystem states: “the more fundamental conception is ‘as it seems to me’ the whole system (in the sense of physics) including not only the organism complex but the whole complex of physical factors we call the environment of the biome—the habitat factors in the widest sense.” However, “system” is never defined or further discussed so it is unclear what Tansley and his contemporaries understood it to mean. Did he mean simply that the abiotic and biotic were to be considered together as a unit unlike the more biologically focused concepts of community and biome? Or did he mean a more process-based approach, as in the physics of coupled systems of partial differential equations (i.e., coupled processes)? If the latter, how was this to be accomplished with no governing equations, such as the Navier–Stokes equations based on the conservation of three basic qualities – mass, energy, and momentum? Whatever Tansley meant initially, the ecosystem concept was subsequently used both as a classification of communities, biomes, and their habitat in terms of environmental factors and as nutrient cycles and energy flows through food webs (McIntosh, 1985). Thus, we are left with an incomplete understanding of how the environment is to be connected as a “system” to organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".