An experimental examination of the effects of habitat quality on the dispersal and local abundance of the butterfly <i>Parnassius smintheus</i>
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 1. Nectar flower abundance was manipulated through flower removal, and sex ratio was manipulated by moving individual butterflies within a series of nine alpine meadows. The movement and abundance of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus in the meadows were monitored using mark–release–recapture methods. 2. A total of 937 butterflies, 698 males and 239 females, was captured. There were 223 observed between‐meadow movements. Fifty‐two per cent of males and 35% of females moved among meadows. 3. The immigration of male butterflies was related positively to nectar flowers, host plant abundance, and female butterflies. Male emigration was not affected by any of the treatments. The number of males captured was related positively to nectar flowers and host plants but not affected by sex ratio. The number of resident male butterflies was greater in meadows containing flowers and was related positively to host plant abundance, but unaffected by sex ratio. 4. Flower removal, sex ratio, and abundance of Sedum had no significant effect on the abundance, movement, or residence time for female butterflies, in part due to small sample size. 5. The fact that males immigrate to higher quality meadows suggests that male butterflies are assessing meadow quality, either by sampling meadows or potentially from a distance using olfactory cues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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