Assessing the dispersal of spiders within agricultural fields and an adjacent mature forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A manipulative experiment was done in corn fields and their adjacent forests using enclosures that restricted access to ground-dwelling spiders. Enclosures were either closed from the adjacent habitat but open to ballooning and ground-dwelling spiders (using holes cut in the side of enclosures) or were open plots (controls). This allowed us to test the role of ballooning compared to cursorial dispersal of ground-dwelling spiders within these habitats. A reciprocal substrate treatment was included in which leaf-litter was added to cornfields and removed from forests to test the interaction between mode of dispersal and habitat use. Ninety species were collected using visual surveys and with pitfall traps. More species were collected in cornfields, and more individuals were collected in litter-addition plots, but we uncovered no interaction between substrate treatment and enclosure type. However, enclosures that excluded cursorial spiders had fewer mature and immature spiders, suggesting that cursorial activity (at a small spatial scale) is an important mode of dispersal within both types of habitats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".