MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255299095 · doi:10.1002/9780470057339.vae010

Ecosystem

2001· other· en· W4255299095 on OpenAlexaff
Hamish Kimmins

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Environmetrics · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyEcosystem ecologyEcosystemHabitatContext (archaeology)Vegetation (pathology)VocabularyGeographyBiologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In common with many other words in the vocabulary of ecology, ‘ecosystem’ is frequently misunderstood. This reflects the short period of a few decades over which this word has been used outside of academic ecology courses, and the lack of knowledge of ecosystem ecology by many who use the word. The word ecosystem was coined in 1935 by the English plant ecologist Tansley. While studying the terrestrial vegetation of the British Isles, he concluded that plant communities can only be understood when considered in the context of the soil, the climate, and the animal and microbial communities with which they are associated. He asserted that vegetation does not exist outside of the ecological system or ecosystem of which it is a part. The science of ecology (from oikos – house or habitat; logos – study of) has been given a variety of definitions that reflect differences in the interests and scientific training of their authors. However, the most complete, yet simplest, definition of ecology is the study of ecosystems . Thus, the concept of an ecosystem is the foundation for all branches of ecology, and it is, therefore, important that its meaning is understood.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1530.033

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of EnvironmetricsSame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207