MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2179323074 · doi:10.1139/z11-114

Significant expansion of the distribution of the bumble bee<i>Bombus moderatus</i>(Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Alberta over 20 years<sup>1</sup>This paper is dedicated to the memory of Adolf Scholl.

2012· article· en· W2179323074 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robin E. Owen, Michael Otterstatter, Ralph V. Cartar, Anna L. Farmer, Sheila R. Colla, N. O’Toole

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryYork UniversityCanadore CollegeMount Royal University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsHymenopteraApidaeBiologyRange (aeronautics)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bombus moderatus Cresson, 1863 occurs in the northern and western regions of North America and reaches its southern limit in Alberta. In 1915, the southernmost record was Banff; by 1987, it had appeared in Kananaskis Country, 40 km southeast of Banff, and by 2010, it had spread 80 km farther east to become one of the more common bumble bee species in Calgary, where it had never been previously recorded. This represents a rate of spread over the last 20 years of about 4 km/year. The simplest hypothesis that can account for this change is that it is just a continuation of the natural expansion of its range since the end of the last ice age. An alternative hypothesis is that it is filling the niche vacated as a result of the decline in another species, Bombus occidentalis Greene, 1858.

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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→