Effect of Formica aserva Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on ground dwelling arthropods in central British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carabids and spiders have potential as bioindicators, but may experience niche overlap with some ants. While some studies have uncovered mixed responses by these taxa to ants, negative associations are frequently found. We examined carabids and spiders in a British Columbia clearcut in zones colonized and non-colonized by Formica aserva ants. The number of carabids captured in colonized and non-colonized zones differed significantly from expected, and species-specific patterns were observed. While the activity-abundance of most spider species did not differ between zones, the activity-abundances of five species were significantly different in colonized and non-colonized zones. We also investigated behavioural responses by the carabid Pterostichus adstrictus to signals of ant presence, and observed that this carabid avoided crushed F. aserva gasters. Our results indicate that F. aserva may influence the activity-abundance of some carabid and spider species, and that some carabids may be able to detect F. aserva chemical signals. -P. ii.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".