Integrating experiments to predict interactive cue effects on spring phenology with warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
on average. Such shifts are some of the most reported and predictable biological impacts of rising temperatures. Yet as climate change has marched on, phenological shifts have appeared muted over recent decades - failing to match simple predictions of an advancing spring with continued warming. The main hypothesis for these changing trends is that interactions between spring phenological cues - long-documented in laboratory environments - are playing a greater role in natural environments due to climate change. Here, we argue that accurately linking shifts observed in long-term data to underlying phenological cues is slowed by biases in observational studies and limited integration of insights from laboratory studies. We synthesize seven decades of laboratory experiments to quantify how phenological cue-space has been studied and how treatments compare with shifts caused by climate change. Most studies focus on one cue, limiting our ability to make accurate predictions, but some well-studied forest species offer opportunities to advance forecasting. We outline how greater integration of controlled-environment studies with long-term data could drive a new generation of laboratory experiments, built on physiological insights, that would transform our fundamental understanding of phenology and improve predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".