MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027610959 · doi:10.3897/bdj.8.e53788

Salix transect of Europe: patterns in the distribution of willow-feeding psyllids (Hemiptera: Psylloidea) from Greece to arctic Norway

2020· article· en· W3027610959 on OpenAlexaff
Diana M. Percy, Quentin Cronk

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Data Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowPsylloideaTransectHemipteraBiologySalicaceaeEcologyBotanyGeographyWoody plantPEST analysisHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Psyllids are oligophagous phytophagous insects with many specialist willow (Salixspp.) feeding species in two genera (CacopsyllaandBactericera). We examine the patterns of distribution and co-occurrence of willow-feeding species at 42 willow sites across Europe forming a transect from Greece (lat. 38.8 °N) to arctic Norway (lat. 70.6 °N). The transect and sites have been described in previous papers. New information A total of 1245 individual psyllids were examined from 23 species of willow over the transect, representing 17 willow-feeding species (11Cacopsyllaand 6Bactericera). Numerous species were very widely distributed, with two species,Bactericera albiventris(Foerster, 1848) andCacopsylla pulchra(Zetterstedt, 1840), occurring from Greece to Finland. Other widespread species (Romania to Finland) wereCacopsylla ambigua(Foerster, 1848) andBactericera curvatinervis(Foerster, 1848). The mean number of psyllid species per site was 2.4 (1.3Cacopsylla, 1.1Bactericera).

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Data JournalSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207