Leafcutter Ants in Southern Amazon Forests, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify the species of leafcutter ants, the infestation rate and the spatial distribution of anthills in forest plantations in Alta Floresta-MT. The samples were collected in five plots, with I and II being a Eucalyptus urophylla × Eucalyptus grandis hybrid plantation, III a consortium of Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa) and rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis), IV and V plots of Tectona grandis. The size of the anthills were measured, obtaining the area in square meters of loose ground, were classified into size classes I: ≤ 1 m2; class II: 1.1 to 2.9 m2; class III: 3 to 8.9 m2; class IV: 9 to 25 m2 e class V: > 25 m2. To calculate dispersion, the Dispersion (DI) and Morisita Index (IϬ) were used. Only one species was observed in all plots (Atta sexdens rubropilosa Forel, 1908). 838 nests were mapped in the five sampled plots, the total average density of anthills found in the plots was 26 anthills/ha. The average total area of loose soil occupied by anthills was 590.05 m2, the distribution of anthills between size classes showed 86.87% disproportion with the anthills in class I. The distribution of the anthills in the five plots that were evaluated were of the aggregate type, following the Morisita Index and the Dispersion index.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".