MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diversity and Seasonal Activity of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Two Vineyards of Southern Quebec, Canada

2004· article· en· W2179325605 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Henri Goulet, Laurent LeSage, N. J. Bostanian, Charles Vincent, Jacques Lasnier

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsVineyardSpecies evennessGround beetleLinyphiidaeBiologyLoamEcologySpecies diversityDiversity indexSpecies richnessHorticultureSoil waterHabitatSpider

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1997 to 1999, 11,435 specimens of ground beetles representing 124 species were captured in pitfall traps at two commercial vineyards in southern Quebec, Canada. Taking into account only the species breeding or likely breeding in the two vineyards, the carabid diversity was similar over the 3-yr period in both sites. The number of species was similar (51 and 54) in both vineyards, but the most common species were ranked differently in a position that was consistent over the 3-yr period. Chlaenius sericeus (Forster) and Clivina fossor (L.) occurred mainly on the clay loam vineyard, and Amara latior (Kirby) and Harpalus herbivagus Say on the gravel and sand loam vineyard. The Shannon diversity and evenness indexes were greater at the gravel and sand loam vineyard. Two recently introduced European species, Harpalus rufipes (Duftschmid) and Pterostichus vernalis (Panzer), became more prevalent between 1997 and 1999 and are likely to affect the rank position at each site. Diversity at the clay loam vineyard was equal to another unsprayed and annually cultivated site on clay in the ecozone. It shared with the unsprayed site a similar number of species for an equal sample size, Shannon and evenness indexes, and for most species, ranking of the most commonly trapped species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207