An updated checklist of the bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) of Pennsylvania, United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Checklists provide information about the species found in a defined region and serve as baselines for detecting species range expansions, contractions, or introductions. Bees are a diverse and important group of insect pollinators. Although some bee populations are declining, these patterns are difficult to document and generalize due to a lack of long-term studies for most localities. Documenting the diversity of wild bee communities is critical for assessing pollination services, community ecology, and geographical and temporal changes in distribution and density. Here, an updated checklist of the bees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, USA, is presented. Since the first checklist was published (2010; 372 species), thousands of additional specimens from the state have been collected and databased, new species have been described in the region, and the taxonomic status of some species have changed. Specimen data from insect collections, databases, scientific literature, and unpublished records were compared to the original checklist. Seventy-nine new state species records – including 49 first-time reports – representing five of the six bee families in North America, were documented resulting in a total of at least 437 bee species reported from Pennsylvania. We highlight new county records and species persistence details. Our list includes a total of 23 exotic species and at least five species of conservation concern. Lists of species excluded from the state checklist and species anticipated to occur in Pennsylvania are also included. This checklist provides baseline data for researchers and the public. The benefits of insect collections, specimen databases, determination and voucher labels, and georeferencing to biodiversity studies and other aspects of biological research are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".