MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393011778 · doi:10.1111/ele.14407

Urban socioeconomic variation influences the ecology and evolution of trophic interactions

2024· article· en· W4393011778 on OpenAlexafffund
Ella Martin, Samer El‐Galmady, Marc T. J. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrophic levelEcologyPredationBiologyEvolutionary ecologyNatural selectionUrbanizationPopulationDemographyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As urbanization expands, it is becoming increasingly important to understand how anthropogenic activity is affecting ecological and evolutionary processes. Few studies have examined how human social patterns within cities can modify eco-evolutionary dynamics. We tested how socioeconomic variation corresponds with changes in trophic interactions and natural selection on prey phenotypes using the classic interaction between goldenrod gall flies (Eurosta solidaginis) and their natural enemies: birds, beetles, and parasitoid wasps. We sampled galls from 84 sites across neighbourhoods with varying socioeconomic levels, and quantified the frequency of predation/parasitism on flies and natural selection by each enemy. We found that bird predation was higher in the highest income neighbourhoods, increasing the strength of selection for smaller galls. Wasp and beetle attack, but not their strength of selection, increased in lower income neighbourhoods. We show that socioeconomic variation in cities can have strong unintended consequences for the ecology and evolution of trophic interactions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207