MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305283232 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2015-0219

Microhabitat use of harvestmen (Arachnida: Opiliones) assemblage in the highland Brazilian Atlantic rainforest

2016· article· en· W2305283232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Felipe de Araújo Lira, Adriano Medeiros DeSouza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsOpilionesSpecies richnessEcologyBiologyRainforestGeneralist and specialist speciesFaunaBiodiversityBiomeHabitatEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brazilian Atlantic rainforest is one of the largest hotspots of biodiversity in the world, with the highest number of harvestmen (Arachnida: Opiliones) species per given area. Currently, however, information on the species richness or spatial distribution of these arachnids in this northeastern Brazilian biome is extremely scarce. We conducted a field study to examine the microhabitat use of harvestmen in a fragment of the highland Atlantic rainforest. Harvestmen fauna and the microhabitat preference were assessed by nocturnal active search across 3 months (September to November 2011). Three hundred and eighteen individuals of eight harvestmen species from seven microhabitats were sampled. Four species were categorized as generalists, colonizing five or six microhabitats, whereas three species showed microhabitat specificity, being found in only one or two microhabitats. The forest ground microhabitat revealed higher harvestmen species richness, indicating that the majority of the harvestmen assemblage is composed of ground-dwelling 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 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207