Muscidae (Diptera) diversity in Churchill, Canada, between two time periods: evidence for limited changes since the Canadian Northern Insect Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A survey of muscid flies from Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, in 2007 yielded 155 species. Some components of species richness and composition of this contemporary assemblage were compared with those of a historical (pre-1965) assemblage, and the contribution of the three collecting methods used in the 2007 survey protocol was evaluated. Estimates of species richness indicated that Malaise traps yielded more species than did pan traps or sweep netting, and that species composition did not differ significantly between Malaise trap and pan trap catches. These results suggest that Malaise traps and sweep netting are adequate methods to survey northern Muscidae. We report little difference in estimated species richness and composition between time periods for material collected by sweep netting. When all material from the 2007 survey was pooled, 87% of the pre-1965 species were collected again in 2007. Most nonoverlapping species between time periods were rare in samples and (or) collected by different methods, suggesting a failure to detect as the most likely explanation for their absence in one assemblage. Nevertheless, the proportion of aquatic and semiaquatic species of Spilogona Schnabl was more than twice as high in the list of species not recovered in 2007 than in the pre-1965 assemblage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".