MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6910778509 · doi:10.5061/dryad.c2kn2k60

Data from: The eco-evolutionary responses of a generalist consumer to resource competition

2012· dataset· en· W6910778509 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2012
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralist and specialist speciesCompetition (biology)Resource (disambiguation)PopulationDivergence (linguistics)Population sizeResource useEvolutionarily stable strategy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the combined evolutionary and ecological responses of resource uptake abilities in a generalist consumer to exploitative competition for one resource using a simple 2-resource model. It compares the sizes of ecologically and evolutionarily caused changes in population densities in cases where the original consumer has a strong or a weak trade-off in its abilities to consume the two resources. The analysis also compares the responses of the original species to competition when the competitor’s population size is or is not limited by the shared resource. While divergence in resource use traits in the resident generalist consumer is expected under all scenarios when resources are substitutable, the changes in population densities of the resources and resident consumer frequently differ between scenarios. The population of the original consumer often decreases as a result of its own adaptive divergence, and this decrease is often much greater than the initial ecological decrease. If the evolving consumer has a strong trade-off, the overlapped resource increases in equilibrium population density in response to being consumed by a generalist competitor. Some of these predictions differ qualitatively in alternative scenarios involving sustained variation in population densities or nutritionally essential resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.027

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→