MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950926357 · doi:10.21083/jeso.v150i0.5013

Sampling Syrphidae using Malaise and Nzi traps on Akimiski Island, Nunavut.

2019· article· en· W2950926357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn A. Vezsenyi, Jeffrey H. Skevington, Kevin M. Moran, Andrew D. Young, Michelle M. Locke, James A. Schaefer, David Beresford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalaiseEcologyRange (aeronautics)Species richnessSnowAbundance (ecology)GeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) are a diverse group of pollinators found almost worldwide. Species surveys of these flies provide unique challenges as they can be difficult to collect due to different trapping biases. Here, we test the efficacy of the Nzi trap for use in the collection of syrphids by comparing the richness and abundance of syrphids caught in a Malaise trap and Nzi trap, July, 2012-2017 on Akimiski Island, Nunavut. We found that the Nzi trap caught many of the same species and in similar abundances as the Malaise trap, except for Platycheirus kelloggi (Snow), of which more were caught in the Nzi than the Malaise. The high capture rate of P. kelloggi using Nzi traps could be due to the flies’ unique shelter- or mate-seeking behaviours related to structure or colour. Using collections from 2008-2017, we also provide new territory records for 55 species and range extensions for 19 species. Two of these, Platycheirus kelloggi and Platycheirus latitarsis Vockeroth, had previously been reported only west of the Rocky Mountains.

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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of OntarioSame topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207