MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402292878 · doi:10.1139/er-2024-0051

Resolving a sorites paradox: how large is a small population?

2024· article· en· W4402292878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Michael Reed, Earl D. McCoy

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHarvard Forest, Harvard UniversityTufts University
KeywordsPopulationGeographyEcologyBiologySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretically, small, isolated populations should not persist. Empirically, this predication appears to be supported in some cases and contradicted in others. Although small population size is a central concept in conservation biology, it is not defined consistently in a biologically meaningful way. Its definition can be arbitrary (e.g., population sizes associated with quasi-extinction risk), driven by Allee thresholds, or assumed tied to minimum viable population size. Published values of small populations range from 20 to 100 000 individuals. Here, we review the concept of small population size, including how one might identify it using risk-based and recovery-based approaches, both of which define smallness functionally. Ideally, we want an approach that is both predictive and practical, but it is not clear that both can be had. We emphasize the important effects of density and dispersion on the risk and performance of populations, effects that tend to be ignored. We suggest that small applied to biological populations is a multifaceted concept, and that no single definition is likely to capture all the complexity. In which case, neither risk-based methods of identifying small populations nor recovery-based methods alone will suffice. We propose a framework that offers several definitions of small population size based on function (i.e., behavior of the population), each of which is sufficient for defining a small population. From expected smallest to largest estimated threshold population size: (1) The population’s behavior is dominated by demographic stochasticity. (2) The population has crossed an Allee threshold, exhibiting negative growth because of a behavioral mechanism inherent in the species. (3) The population has declined to the minimum persistent population size as revealed by a stochastic, simulation model, omitting threats and mitigation. (4) The population is unresponsive to threat mitigation. Although this method results in a designation of small populations that is both functional and biologically meaningful, the systematic study of the dynamics of small populations across taxa, and across density and dispersion within taxa, will create a more nuanced understanding of extinction risk. Ultimately, developing a predictive, recovery-based understanding of small-population dynamics will help link the small-population and declining-population paradigms, and improve species management planning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207