Status and trends of terrestrial arthropod abundance and diversity in the North Atlantic region of the Arctic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP) provides an opportunity to improve our knowledge of Arctic arthropod diversity, but initial baseline studies are required to summarise the status and trends of planned target groups of species known as Focal Ecosystem Components (FECs). We begin this process by collating available data for a relatively well-studied region in the Arctic, the North Atlantic region, summarising the diversity of key terrestrial arthropod FECs, and compiling trends for some representative species. We found the FEC classification system to be challenging to implement, but identified some key groups to target in the initial phases of the programme. Long-term data are scarce and exhibit high levels of spatial and temporal variability. Nevertheless, we found that a number of species and groups are in decline, mirroring patterns in other regions of the world. We emphasise that terrestrial arthropods require higher priority within future Arctic monitoring programmes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it