Are we providing the preferred floral resources for bees in our neighborhoods? Relationships between small scale vegetation metrics and pollinator visitation in SE Portland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the threat of losing our pollinators, there are many conservation actions such as "pollinator friendly" areas being constructed in cities around the globe, because of this there is a need for a greater understanding of the relationship between bees, and floral resources at a local landscape level. I assessed the relationship between blossom density, inflorescence type, cover, frequency, density and numbers of bees observed at three different "pollinator friendly" areas in South East Portland. This project utilized community science members to gather observational monitoring data at Johnson Creek Commons Rain Garden, SE Yukon Bioswales and Beyer Court Rain Garden in Lents, Oregon. I hypothesize several significant findings from my research, such as the relationship between small scale vegetation metrics and floral visitor activity, and a relationship between diversity and richness of sites and morpho-species groupings. The results of this study will be utilized in developing a deeper understanding of the relationship between pollinators and floral resources at a local landscape level, and in addition will provide recommendations for floral resources used in "pollinator friendly" projects in conservation areas in South East Portland.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".