MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021538415 · doi:10.5558/tfc77651-4

Reduced ground beetle activity following ice damage in maple stands of southwestern Quebec

2001· article· en· W2021538415 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Michel Saint‐Germain, Yves Mauffette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnderstoryEcologyDisturbance (geology)DeciduousCrown (dentistry)Environmental scienceAbundance (ecology)ForestryMapleGeographyBiologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1998 ice storm led to significant tree crown loss in the deciduous forests of southwestern Quebec. Increased irradiation in the understory may alter edaphic parameters of affected forests, such as temperature and humidity. We examined effects such a disturbance might have on the epigeal fauna of sugar maple stands during the summers of 1998 and 1999. Dry pitfall traps were set in the deciduous forest of Mont-Saint-Bruno Provincial Park, 20 km southeast of Montreal, Quebec under three different post-ice storm conditions (light tree crown loss, severe loss, and gaps) from mid-July to mid-August. We captured significantly fewer total Coleoptera and Carabidae at sites damaged by the ice storm. Species diversity of Coleoptera was also lower at damaged sites. However, the daily activity cycle of the insects did not change following heavy crown loss. Synhuchus impunctatus (Say), the dominant forest species, proved to be very sensitive to the disturbance. Observed decreases in insect abundance may be related to environmental changes resulting from heavy crown loss; these effects were probably both direct (on metabolism) and indirect (on nutritional resources). Key words: Carabidae, crown loss, disturbance, ice storm, maple stands, Synuchus impunctatus

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207