MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260251234

The Invasive Ant Fauna (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Laysan Island, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge

2009· article· en· W2260251234 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gregory T. W. McClelland, Ian L. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsEcologyFaunaIntroduced speciesInvasive speciesRange (aeronautics)BiologyGeographyWildlife
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ants are not native to any of the Hawaiian Islands and invasive ant impacts on Hawaiian ecosystems have been profound, so documentation of ant diversity is crucial to understanding and managing these alien species. Changes to the invasive ant fauna on Laysan Island, Northwest Hawaiian Islands, were documented in 2005, fifteen years after the previous (1990) survey of the island. Six species were found on the island, all previously recorded. The common tramp ant Monomorium pharaonis was found to have greatly expanded its range to become the dominant ant on Laysan. During the same period, the range of the previously dominant ant species, Tetramorium bicarinatum, greatly decreased and the species was limited to the dense vegetation areas around the island’s central lake. Tetramorium simillimum, possibly the most recent introduction to the island, and previously the second most widespread species, was not located in surveys and is possibly extirpated. An invasive ant species has apparently not become established on Laysan in almost 20 years suggesting current quarantine measures are a successful deterrent to colonization events.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa)Same topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207