MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509186654 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v123i2.692

Plants and Insects New to Sable Island, Nova Scotia

2009· article· en· W1509186654 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul M. Catling, Zoe Lucas, Bill Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanausBiologyBotanyEcologyLepidoptera genitalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During recent inventories, particularly in 2008 and 2009, 8 plants and 17 insects were found that are additions to the flora and fauna of Sable Island, respectively. Additions to the flora include Alnus incana subsp. rugosa, Carex nigra, Frangula alnus, Isoetes tuckermanii, Linaria vulgaris, Mertensia maritima, Panicum dichotomiflorum, and Solidago rugosa. Additions to the insect fauna include Apateticus bracteatus, Barce fraterna, Carabus maeander, Conocephalus fasciatus, Danaus plexippus, Eulithis explanata, Haliplus cribrarius, Harmonia axyridis, Lasioglossum novascotiae, Lateroligia ophiogramma, Lycophotia phyllophora, Muirodelphax arvensis, Nemoria rubrifrontaria, Neoconocephalus retusus, Paraphlepsius irroratus, Scaphytopius acutus, and Spilodiscus arcuatus. The occurrence of Spilodiscus arcuatus is of interest with respect to an apparent decline throughout much of its range. Neoconocephalus retusus and species of Catocala provide an indication of the capability of storms to transport even large insects over substantial distances. The increasing numbers of Danaus plexippus observed may be part of a trend toward the northward movement of migratory insects. Some of the 7 plants are likely recent arrivals, but Isoetes tuckermanii and others may have been previously overlooked.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207