Bibliographic record
Abstract
I investigated the use of edge by soil arthropods by testing whether mesoarthropod predators were closer to edge than expected and whether large predators were closer to edge than small predators. The experimental design consisted of 120 boxes, each covering 200 cm2 of soil, that were randomly distributed within a 0.13-km2 aspen stand located in the Canadian prairie region. Each 2-kg box depressed the leaf litter, creating a microhabitat island for soil arthropods consisting of 61 cm of edge. During 20 weekly surveys from May to September in 1997 and 1998, numbers and distribution of arthropods located immediately beneath the boxes were recorded. Mesoarthropod predators were found closer to edge than expected. Centipedes, beetle larvae, and predatory mites (Acari) were found at intermediate distances to edge, whereas beetles, ants, adult flies, bugs, and spiders were distributed adjacent to edge. Generally, larger mesoarthropod predators were found closer to edge than smaller individuals, within each taxonomic group. Collembola, the major mesofauna prey, were distributed randomly with respect to edge during wet periods of high density. During the subsequent dry periods, reduced densities of Collembola occurred and distribution became skewed, with greater numbers in interior areas and reduced densities near edges. Temperature and moisture under the boxes did not vary with distance to edge, although the microclimate was cooler and more humid under the experimental boxes relative to beyond the boxes. These results support the hypotheses that mesoarthropod predators forage along box edges (i.e., linear corridors) and that larger individuals may gain access to edge owing to their larger size, although alternative explanations are possible, depending on the particular taxonomic group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".