MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Field Guide to the Tiger Beetles of the United States and Canada

2005· book· en· W2799082350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David L. Pearson, C. Barry Knisley, Charles J Kazilek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTigerAmateurDragonflyIdentification (biology)SubspeciesGeographyHabitatOdonataNatural historyEcologyBiologyArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This color illustrated field and natural history guide treats all 107 known tiger beetle species found in North America above the Mexican border. Tiger beetles are among the most widely found and popular families of insects worldwide. Enabling amateur naturalists and professionals to use two identification methods--comparison of colored pictures to live or mounted specimens, and use of illustrated dichotomous keys--full biological accounts emphasize points for identification, behaviors, and habitats. Distribution maps show where various species and subspecies can be found. The authors promote a new and exciting activity of insect watching as an alternative or supplement to collecting (the general feeling among "butterfliers" and dragonfly and damselfly enthusiasts). Communicating primarily through the un-refereed journal Cincindela, (Tiger Beetler) specialists themselves prefer the term, "cicindelophiles." They represent an ardent sublet of the growing number of serious amateur naturalists who invest in outdoor activities seeking and identifying birds, butterflies, dragonflies, flowering plants, and various other forms of life.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2090.075

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207