Predator-prey interactions and alternative prey hypothesis - a comparative insight from the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predator-prey interactions have changed substantially in recent decades, with vast consequences for entire Arctic ecosystem. Lemmings and voles represent the primary food source for predators in the Arctic, but they have vanished from many regions recently, with poorly understood implications for the remaining organisms. There are several local pieces of evidence that shorebird nests serve as alternative prey for Arctic predators during the lack of Arctic rodents, but a comparative perspective has been so far lacking. Therefore, I compile a comparative look at the issue, summarizing the existing knowledge on the alternative prey hypothesis and its effect on shorebirds as common alternative prey in the Arctic. The alternative prey hypothesis seems to be supported more in the Russian Arctic than in the Canadian Arctic and the support for the hypothesis was probably stronger before year 2000 than after, possibly connected with disrupted cycles of Arctic rodent populations. Not well functioning alternative prey hypothesis could contribute to recently observed population declines of Arctic shorebirds. However, the higher abundances and functional cyclicity of Arctic rodents are again reappearing at some Arctic locations and the whole issue requires more detailed meta-analytical investigation. Diverse, mostly...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".