MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623231074 · doi:10.22543/0090-0222.1794

Epigeal and Flight Activity of Coleoptera in a Commercial Raspberry Plantation and Adjacent Sites in Southern Quebec (Canada): Introduction and Nitidulidae

2017· article· en· W2623231074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Levesque, Gilles-Yvon Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Great Lakes Entomologist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State UniversityOhio State University
KeywordsBiologyBlowing a raspberryEpigealAbundance (ecology)BotanyEcologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the epigeal and flight activity of Coleoptera in a commercial raspberry plantation and adjacent sites in southern Quebec, from 1987-1989. In this first paper, we present the results for the Nitidulidae. Pitfall traps yielded 521 beetles representing 15 species; Glischrochilus quadrisignatus represented 86% of catches in raspberry rows (old and young plants), and Epuraea spp. were the most abundant nitidulids in a woods-field boundary and in a pine woods. Nitidulids in flight interception traps comprised 2179 individuals of 28 species; Meligethes nigrescens was the most abundant species in open sites around the raspberry plantation, while Epuraea avara and E. ovata were common in the boundary and pine woods. Species composition in the boundary was quite variable in the relative abundance of species flying either in open sites or in wooded sites. We studied the seasonal activity of Colopterus truncatus, E. avara, E. ovata, G. fasciatus, G. quadrisignatus, M nigrescens, and some other minor species. We suspect that during their mating period, overwintered adults of M nigrescens could playa role in raspberry pollinization.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Great Lakes EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207