MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INSECT BIODIVERSITY OF BOREAL PEAT BOGS

2005· review· en· W2102257918 on OpenAlexaff
Karel Spitzer, H. V. Danks

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersAkademie Věd České RepublikyGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBogEcologyPeatMireBiodiversityBorealHabitatBiologyBiomeFaunaEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boreal peat bogs contain distinctive insects in addition to widely distributed generalists, including species restricted to bogs (tyrphobionts) and species characteristic of bogs but not confined to them (tyrphophiles). Bogs raised above the water table form characteristic habitat islands in southern boreal and temperate forest zones. Many bogs have persisted for hundreds and even thousands of years, preserving relict ecosystems related to subarctic biomes. The historical development and nature of individual bogs are reflected by differences among their insects, which are of great biogeographical and ecological interest. The environmental sensitivity of bogs also makes insects valuable as bioindicators. Moreover, few readily accessible bogs remain in a natural state. Given the scientific interest of bog insects and the fact that each relict bog habitat island is unique, further studies of the diversity of bog faunas are merited, and the conservation of these habitats should be strongly supported by entomologists.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations166
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of EntomologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207