Bias of reduced‐effort community surveys for adult Odonata of lentic waters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Repeat surveys are needed to capture a representative spectrum of adult odonate richness at a site, but specifics on frequency and duration of surveys and associated inferential biases are poorly understood. 2. Weekly 1 h surveys of mature male dragonflies and damselflies were repeated at least 15 times at 19 ponds, lakes and wetlands scattered throughout North America. For each site, we tallied the data remaining when the weekly frequency was reduced to 75% (every 1.5 weeks), 50% (biweekly), 33% (triweekly), and 25% (monthly) and the 1 h survey to 50, 40, 30, 20 and 10 min subsets. 3. Reducing the original effort by half (i.e. to 30 min biweekly) retained about 80% of the species on average. The smallest effort (10 min monthly) retained about 49% of species. The greatest rate of information loss occurred between 20 and 10 min. 4. Across‐site analysis found that data subsets correlated to the original data set ( r > 0.81) despite up to 50% species loss. Strong correlations ( r ≥ 0.98) remained with 10–15% species loss. 5. Biweekly surveys lasting 20–40 min each may provide a representative and cost‐effective sample of adult odonate richness in lentic study sites. Losing a handful of species should not greatly undermine richness and compositional comparisons among sites.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it