MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bumblebee Vulnerability: Common Correlates of Winners and Losers across Three Continents

2009· article· en· W2115362205 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul H. Williams, Sheila R. Colla, Zhenghua Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBumblebeeRange (aeronautics)EcologyBiologyCompetition (biology)GeographyFaunaAbundance (ecology)PhenologyPollinatorPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely agreed that in many parts of the world some bumblebee (Bombus) species have declined, and that this has often been driven by land-use changes that cause reductions in the abundance of food plants. There is much less agreement about how changes in food plants affect some bumblebee species more than others. We sought to identify which species' characteristics are generally associated with the relative winners and losers by comparing the 3 independent bumblebee faunas from parts of Britain, Canada, and China. Using available survey data, we assessed species characteristics, including competition with congeners, climatic specialization, proximity to climatic range edge, food specialization, phenology, body size, and range size. Results of our meta-analysis of correlations showed support for the hypotheses that decline susceptibility is generally greater for species that have greater climatic specialization, for species in areas where they occur closest to the edges of their climatic ranges, and for species that have queens that become active later in the year. The latter characteristic may render a species at a particular disadvantage when they have long colony cycles if there are losses of food plants in mid to late colony development.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
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

Citations171
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207