Diversity of forest upland arachnid communities in Manitoba taiga (Araneae, Opiliones)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity of forest upland arachnid communities in Manitoba taiga (Araneae, Opiliones).Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(4): 636-651.The diversity of taiga upland arachnid communities, collected mainly in pitfall or pan traps, is compared among forested habitats in two Manitoba regions, one southern and one northern.In the south, where collections were taken both in summer and in winter under the snow cover, the dominant spider families were Erigonidae, Linyphiidae, Lycosidae, and Gnaphosidae.The diurnal and nocturnal pursuit guilds dominated across habitats.In the north, with summer collecting only, dominant familes were Lycosidae, Gnaphosidae and Erigonidae of the diurnal pursuit guild.The southern taiga uplands had 99 species of spiders, northern uplands 49 species with 19 species common to both regions.The five most dominant species from these families are Agroeca ornata Banks, Gnaphosa microps Holm, Pardosa xerampelina (Keyserling), P. mackenziana (Keyserling), and Agelenopsis utahana (Chamberlin and Ivie).Three opilionid species occur in the south and one species, Odiellus pictus Wood, occurs in both regions.In this region of the taiga, we found the most species-rich habitats to be undisturbed forest types, i.e., alder-tamarack ecotone in winter, which produced 34 winter-active species (n=233), with 27 species collected only during winter months.Among-habitat differences in species richness, species dominance and guild composition suggests that maintenance of habitat heterogeneity is needed at all scales to preserve the diversity of forest floor arachnid communities in managed taiga forests.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".