MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789464977 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0226

Climate and habitat influences on bee community structure in Western Canada

2018· article· en· W2789464977 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Soraya Villalobos, Jana C. Vamosi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEcologyPollinatorHabitatCladePhenologyPollinationPollenPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The persistence of pollinators in a given habitat is determined in part by traits that affect their response to environmental variables. Here, we show that climate and habitat features are the main drivers of trait distribution in bees across spatially separated habitats. We determined that trait and clade filtering results in bee assemblages in Western Canada exhibiting clustering that is correlated with differences in temperature, humidity, and rainfall. Phylogenetic signals were detected in all traits associated with pollinator life-history strategies, including phenology. The Bombus Latreille, 1802 clade (including the social parasite subgenus Psithyrus Lepeletier, 1833) comprised a higher proportion of prairie bees, whereas assemblages in Garry oak sites exhibited higher representation from solitary bees (e.g., genera Osmia Panzer, 1806, Andrena Fabricius, 1775, Ceratina Latreille, 1802). Because these same traits influence which plant species are pollinated, this selective environmental occupancy within the two different habitats could promote local adaptation of flowering plant species pollinated by more social clades in prairies and more solitary bees in Garry oak.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→