MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Activity and abundance of bumble bees near Crested Butte, Colorado: diel, seasonal, and elevation effects

2011· article· en· W2142480519 on OpenAlexaff
Graham H. Pyke, David W. Inouye, James D. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Entomology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenologyAbundance (ecology)EcologyDiel vertical migrationPollinationPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. We revisited bumble bee survey data collected by Pyke in 1974 (Pyke, Ecology , 63 , 555–573, 1982) to evaluate seasonal changes in abundances of bumble bees and their floral resources, diel patterns of bumble bee activity, and elevation effects on plant and bumble bee phenology. 2. Bumble bee abundance increased during summer as spring queens founded colonies that produced workers, followed by males and autumn queens. The number of plant species visited by bumble bees increased to a peak in midsummer, then declined. 3. The number of bumble bees recorded per person‐hour peaked later than the number of flowering plant species used by the bees. Few autumn queens were observed. 4. Despite species differences in emergence times of spring queens, there were no apparent phenological differences among species in worker abundances. 5. Because flowering commences later at higher elevation, abundances of workers and males are also shifted later; therefore elevational comparisons must be seasonally adjusted. 6. These analyses provide basic information about important pollinating insects, and permit future investigations of elevational shifts over time to be properly adjusted for phenological and elevation effects in survey data.

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)0.001
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207