Beneficial arthropods visiting Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) in selected habitats in Wrocław area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis as one of the most expansive invasive plants is commonly found on the territory of Poland. Not such work has been done so far on arthropods in habitats of S. canadensis in our country. The aim of the present study was to determine the number of different groups of beneficial arthropods occurring on Canada goldenrod plants. Studies were conducted at two sites in the city of Wroclaw in 2009–2010. Three observation methods were used i.e. the direct plant monitoring, counting insects over a 1 m 2 frame and the sweep net. The obtained results show a high attractiveness of Canada goldenrod plants to the predatory, parasitic and pollinating arthropods, especially during the time of plant flowering. Among the predatory insects most frequently recorded were hoverflies (Syrphidae) and lacewings (Chrysopidae). In the sweep net catch the most numerous were spiders (Araneae) and parasitic wasps (Parasitica). A one of the species that also occurred on Canada goldenrod was the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.), especially with a high population density during late summer and early autumn, when the flowers of the other honey plants were already overblown. This indicates a high suitability of S. canadensis as a good supplementary source of nectar for pollinators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".