MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974803401 · doi:10.5513/jcea01/13.2.1051

RURAL SETTLEMENTS AS BIOCENTRES FOR CARABID BEETLES (COLEOPTERA, CARABIDAE) IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE

2012· article· en· W1974803401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaroslav Boháč, Ján Černý

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Central European Agriculture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
KeywordsOrdinationHuman settlementGeographyAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)BiodiversityEcologyAgricultural landAgroforestryForestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biodiversity of carabid beetles was studied using pitfall trapping in two small settlements in the agricultural landscape of southern Bohemia (Central Europe) and in the Vltava housing quarter of České Budějovice. The results were compared with surrounding agricultural landscape. The highest number of carabid species in communities was found in the intensively managed agricultural landscape and in Vltava housing quarter. The number of species was lower in villages but the higher activity of stenotopic carabids was typical for these localities. Ordination of species did not found the distinct difference with exception of three species preferring wet biotopes with clay soils. Ordination of samples reflect the clear difference of samples from the surrounding agricultural landscape and samples from the Vltava housing quarter. Rural settlements are suitable for some stenotopic and protected carabids in monotonous agricultural landscape.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Central European AgricultureSame topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207