MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973119119 · doi:10.22543/0090-0222.2346

A Five-Year Study of the Flying Beetles (Coleoptera) from a Grassland and an Adjacent Woods in Southern Québec (Canada)

2019· article· en· W2973119119 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Claire Levesque, Gilles-Yvon Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Great Lakes Entomologist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsBiologyEcologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the entire snow-free season (April or May to October) in 2006-2010, we collected with four flight interception traps a total of 34 629 individuals of 848 Coleoptera species belonging to 60 families in southern Québec (Canada). We catched mainly phytophagous and zoophagous beetles. The majority of species (621 or 73,2%) were represented by less than 10 adults over the five years; however, we collected at least 100 adults for 48 species, including four major species: Meligethes nigrescens Stephens (15,9% of the total catches), Longitarsus luridus (Scopoli) (10,6%), Eusphalerum pothos (Mannerheim) (9,1%) and Acidota subcarinata Erichson (5,9%). Between 39 and 47% of species from a trap were collected in one month only over the five years; whereas E. pothos and M. nigrescens flew mainly in May and June, and adults of A. subcarinata and L. luridus were collected mainly in September and October. Over 2006-2010, we catched a total of 9214 individuals of 439 species in the grassland, 7503 individuals of 519 species at the woods edge, 5943 individuals of 356 species in the woods, and 11969 individuals of 468 species near a ditch parallel to the woods. We consider that the curve of the cumulative number of species for each trap over 33 months in five years may indicate a good estimation of the flying beetle species richness in a site. Seven species were dominant in at least one trap over 2006-2010: A. subcarinata, Bradycellus nigrinus (Dejean), Cercyon assecla Smetana, E. pothos, Isochnus rufipes (LeConte), L. luridus and M. nigrescens. In a window trap, some dominant and subdominant species showed considerable fluctuation in percentage from year to year, particularly E. pothos, L. luridus and M. nigrecens. Also, we believe that, in the future, it will be important to explore variations of beetle biodiversity on long time.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Great Lakes EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207