Changes in the bee fauna (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of an old field site in southern Ontario, revisited after 34 years
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 We investigated changes in a wild bee community by repeating a detailed historical study of bee biodiversity in Ontario. In 1968 and 1969 (period 1), an inventory of bee species was taken from an old field habitat in southern Ontario. We resampled the bee fauna in 2002 and 2003 (period 2), following the same methods. Bee species richness, diversity, and evenness were significantly greater in period 2, and this was observed in all functional guilds except wood-nesting, pollen specialist, and nonnative bees. In period 2, a total of 150 bee species were found (2002, 98 species; 2003, 143 species), whereas in period 1, a total of 105 species were found (1968, 98 species; 1969, 76 species). Although 90 bee species collected in period 1 were re-collected in period 2, bee community composition was remarkably different between periods, with an estimated community similarity of only 7.5%. Changes in the bee fauna, specifically the increase in the proportions of pollen specialist and wood-nesting bees, might be best explained by changes in the habitat as a result of succession over the intervening 34 years. We compare and contrast our findings of bee community change with the published literature and discuss the possible factors driving the change.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it