MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177231747 · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-29.3.460

Species Richness of the Campopleginae and Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) Along a Latitudinal Gradient in Eastern North American Old-Growth Forests

2000· article· en· W2177231747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Lockard Skillen, John Pickering, Michael Joseph Sharkey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIchneumonidaeHymenopteraEntomologySpecies richnessEcologyBiologyLibrary scienceEnvironmental ethicsHistoryParasitoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We ran 10 Malaise traps along a latitudinal gradient in five old-growth forests: San Felasco Hammock, FL (30° N, 82° W); Tall Timbers Research Station, FL (31° N, 84° W); Hitchiti Experimental Forest, GA (33° N, 84° W); Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, MD (39° N, 77° W), and Shaw Woods, Ontario (46° N, 77° W). Of 18,791 ichneumonid wasps collected, 1,487 campoplegines and 4,494 ichneumonines were sorted to 241 species (95 species of Campopleginae and 146 of Ichneumoninae). Campoplegine species richness was highest at the Georgia site: San Felasco (20 species), Tall Timbers (32), Hitchiti (49), Patuxent (35), and Shaw Woods (12). Ichneumonine species richness was highest at the Maryland site: San Felasco (47), Tall Timbers (30), Hitchiti (44), Patuxent (68), and Shaw Woods (37). The results confirm reported trends that peak North American ichneumonid species richness lies at midlatitudes. However, they document greater biodiversity in the southern states and a broader peak than previously reported.

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)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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