Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are not students of some subject matter but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the boundaries of our subject matter and disciplines. – Karl Popper, 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: Growth of Scientific Knowledge . This is not an ecosystem textbook in the usual sense in being primarily about biology but rather it is a collateral book that introduces the physical environment into ecosystems using a biogeoscience approach . Why do this? A biogeoscience approach uses: 1) process- or mechanistic-based approaches and 2) formal (mathematical) models of governing equations that involve transport processes and continuity or conservation equations. Ecology has, in general, viewed the physical environment as a black box, using simple arrows to indicate the connections between the physical environment and ecological systems, but with minimal or no consideration of the operation of these physical environmental processes. The reasons for this are varied, but may be attributed partly to different approaches of problem solving in biological vs. geophysical sciences and to both disciplines not always understanding how the other could be connected in more than a descriptive or correlational manner. The purpose of this book is to take advantage of progress in the geosciences (including geomorphology, soil science, hydrology, and meteorology/climatology) to advance the understanding of ecosystem science. The goal is to present these geoscience developments in a manner such that ecologists who have had limited exposure to these ideas and methods can gain an introduction and understanding of how these couplings can be used in ecosystem science. We intend the book not to be a hopeful discussion of what we should or could be doing to tie the disciplines together, but rather to be a set of chapters providing examples of explicit approaches and procedures of how such research has coupled successfully the fields of ecology and geoscience. A quick look at the research areas of biogeoscience (Table 1.1) will note large and very active topics (e.g., geomicrobiology) that are not considered in this book. It is easy to think of topics that we could (should) have included in this book.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.442 | 0.307 |
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".