MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414533025 · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2025.08.005

‘Earth system engineers’ and the cumulative impact of organisms in deep time

2025· article· en· W4414533025 on OpenAlexaff
Simon A.F. Darroch, Michelle Casey, Alison Cribb, Amanda E. Bates, Matthew E. Clapham, Dori L. Contreras, Matthew Craffey, Ivo Duijnstee, William Gearty, Nicholas J. Gotelli, Marcus J. Hamilton, Riley F Hayes, Pincelli M. Hull, Daniel Ibarra, Vera A. Korasidis, Jae Min Lee, Cindy V. Looy, Tyler R. Lyson, Benjamin Muddiman, Peter D. Roopnarine, Alex B. Shupinski, Felisa A. Smith, Alycia L. Stigall, Catalina P. Tomé, Katherine A. Turk, Amelia Villaseñor, Peter J. Wagner, Steve C. Wang, S. Kathleen Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Ecology & Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersDivision of Environmental Biology
KeywordsScope (computer science)EcosystemDeep timeEarth system scienceNicheFunction (biology)Perspective (graphical)Term (time)Anthropocene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the role of humans as 'ecosystem engineers' requires a deep-time perspective rooted in evolutionary history and the fossil record. However, no conceptual framework exists for studying the rise of ecosystem engineering in deep time, requiring us to consider effects that fall outside the scope of traditional definitions. Here, we present a new framework applicable to both modern and ancient engineering-type effects. We propose a new term - 'Earth system engineering' - to describe biological processes that alter the structure and function of planetary spheres, and which combines core tenets of ecosystem engineering, niche construction, and legacy effects. We illustrate this framework using the fossil record, and show how it can be applied across the tree of life, and throughout Earth history.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Ecology & EvolutionSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207