MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining numbers of active carabid beetles per unit area from pitfall‐trap data

2001· article· en· W2028023231 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Raworth, Man‐Young Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrap (plumbing)BiologyPopulation densityEcologyAnimal scienceStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsMeteorologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Movement of Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was studied in the laboratory, and a simulation model developed. The model was calibrated and validated using mark‐release‐recapture within a grid of pitfall traps in a commercial raspberry field. Rate of movement increased linearly with both temperature and starvation. The temperature threshold for movement, pooling all starvation levels was 3.8 °C ± 0.78 (s.e.). When beetles were released at various distances from a trap in the simulation model, the probability of capture during one day was about 0.13 at a release distance of 10 cm and fell rapidly with distance and temperature. At 5, 10, 15, and 20 °C, the maximum radius sampled by a trap in one day was about 8, 17, 24, and 29 m, respectively. Density was linearly related to catch, but the slope of the line and the variance of the density estimate increased rapidly at lower temperatures. Equations for determining density per m2 (±s.d.) were developed from the model, incorporating temperature, number of beetles caught per trap, and number of traps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207