Spiders (Araneae) associated with downed woody material in a deciduous forest in central Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Spiders (Araneae) were collected on and near downed woody material (DWM) in a Populus ‐dominated forest to determine if spiders utilize wood surfaces, and to ascertain the importance of DWM habitat and wood elevation for spider assemblages. 2 Over 10 000 spiders representing 100 species were collected. Although more spiders were collected on the forest floor, spider diversity was higher in traps located on wood surfaces than on the forest floor, and 11 species were collected more frequently on wood surfaces. 3 Spiders utilized DWM at different stages in their development. Female Pardosa mackenziana (Keyserling) (Lycosidae) carrying egg sacs were caught most often on the surface of DWM, possibly to sun their egg sacs. Additionally, the proportion of immature spiders was higher on the wood surface than on the forest floor. 4 Spiders collected on logs with and without bark were compared to assemblages collected on telephone poles to assess what features of DWM habitat may be important. Web‐building species were seldom collected on telephone poles, suggesting that they depend on the greater habitat complexity provided by DWM. In contrast, hunting spiders did not distinguish between telephone poles and logs. 5 Fewer spiders and a less diverse fauna utilized elevated compared to ground‐level wood. Additionally, Detrended Correspondence Analysis revealed that the spider community from elevated wood was distinguishable from the spider community from ground‐level wood, and from the forest floor spider community.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".