Ecological dynamic regimes: Identification, characterization, and comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding ecological dynamics has been a central topic in ecology since its origins. Yet, identifying dynamic regimes remains a research frontier for modern ecology. The concept of ecological dynamic regime (EDR) emerged to emphasize the dynamic property of steady states in nature and refers to the fluctuations of ecosystems around some trend or average. Identifying and characterizing EDRs is of utmost importance in the current context of global change since they form the reference against which post‐disturbance dynamics must be compared to assess ecological resilience. However, the implementation of EDRs in empirical science is still challenging given the high dimensionality and stochasticity of ecological data and the large volume of data required to distinguish stochastic dynamics from general and predictable dynamics. The era of big data and the recent advances in quantitative ecology and data science offer an opportunity to study dynamic regimes using empirical approaches from a new perspective. This paper presents a novel methodological framework to describe EDRs from a set of ecological trajectories defined by the temporal changes of state variables in a multidimensional state space. In our framework, we formally define EDRs and include analytical tools to identify, characterize, and compare EDRs based on their geometric characteristics. More specifically, we propose different ways to identify EDRs from empirical data, develop a new algorithm to identify representative trajectories summarizing the main dynamic patterns, propose a set of metrics to describe the internal distribution of ecological trajectories, and define a dissimilarity index to compare two or more dynamic regimes based on their shape and position in the state space. We used artificial data to illustrate the different elements of our framework and applied our analyses to real data, using permanent sampling plots of Canadian boreal forests as an example. Overall, our framework contributes to filling the gap between theoretical and empirical ecology by providing robust analytical tools to assess ecological resilience and study ecosystem dynamics from a multidimensional perspective and considering the variability of natural systems.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it