Activity of flying beetles (Coleoptera) at two heights in canopy gaps and intact forests in a hardwood forest in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied the effects of forest height and forest gap on assemblages of flying beetles in an American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (Fagaceae) – sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh. (Aceraceae)) forest in Quebec. From June until August of 2005, beetles were collected in Lindgren funnel traps placed in the canopy (20–25 m height) and upper understorey (3–5 m height) in proximity to five forest gaps (15–30 m in diameter) (at the edge of the forest opening or within the closed-canopy forest). We collected 1852 beetles representing 38 families and 172 species. Based on rarefaction curves, species richness was significantly higher in the canopy than in the upper understorey. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination revealed a change in species composition in relation to vertical stratification but not to the forest gaps. Our findings confirmed the importance of the vertical forest gradient to overall diversity of forest coleopterans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".