An assessment of direct and indirect effects of climate change for populations of the Rocky Mountain Apollo butterfly (Parnassius smintheus Doubleday)
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 Climate change is occurring and insects are responding. Current challenges for ecologists and managers are predicting how organisms will respond to continuing climate change and determining how to mitigate potential negative effects. In contrast to broad scale predictions for climate change involving the distribution of species, in this article we highlight the many ways in which local populations of the Rocky Mountain Apollo butterfly (Parnassius smintheus Doubleday) are predicted to respond to climate change. Using experimental and observational data collected over the past 15 years, we detail both direct and indirect effects. In addition, we identify limitations in our knowledge restricting the ability to predict how populations will respond to climate change. Some changes, such as warmer winter temperatures, may have beneficial effects; however, most of the effects of climate change will be detrimental. Variability in snow cover during the overwintering period and habitat loss due to forest encroachment have the largest potential negative effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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