MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393116986 · doi:10.1111/gcb.17236

Predicting the future of our oceans—Evaluating genomic forecasting approaches in marine species

2024· article· en· W4393116986 on OpenAlexafffund
Kara K S Layton, Marine Servane Ono Brieuc, Rita Castilho, Natalia Díaz‐Arce, D.A. García Estévez, Vera G. Fonseca, Angela P. Fuentes‐Pardo, Nicholas W. Jeffery, Belén Jiménez‐Mena, Claudia Junge, Joshka Kaufmann, Tuomas Leinonen, S. M. Maes, Philip McGinnity, Thomas E. Reed, C. M. O. Reisser, Gonçalo Silva, Anti Vasemägi, Ian Bradbury

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersEusko JaurlaritzaEesti TeadusagentuurFisheries and Oceans CanadaScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsClimate changeBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementGenomicsEcologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is restructuring biodiversity on multiple scales and there is a pressing need to understand the downstream ecological and genomic consequences of this change. Recent advancements in the field of eco-evolutionary genomics have sought to include evolutionary processes in forecasting species' responses to climate change (e.g., genomic offset), but to date, much of this work has focused on terrestrial species. Coastal and offshore species, and the fisheries they support, may be even more vulnerable to climate change than their terrestrial counterparts, warranting a critical appraisal of these approaches in marine systems. First, we synthesize knowledge about the genomic basis of adaptation in marine species, and then we discuss the few examples where genomic forecasting has been applied in marine systems. Next, we identify the key challenges in validating genomic offset estimates in marine species, and we advocate for the inclusion of historical sampling data and hindcasting in the validation phase. Lastly, we describe a workflow to guide marine managers in incorporating these predictions into the decision-making process.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207