Factors affecting carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in successional sub boreal spruce forests, with special reference to their interaction with ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in west central British Columbia are relatively poorly examined. Additionally, the influence of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on carabid assemblages is infrequently acknowledged as a factor that affects carabid diversity, distribution, and activity. The purpose of this study was to examine carabid assemblages in successional sub boreal spruce forests in west central British Columbia, and specifically how they are affected by two species of ants Formica aserva (Forel) and Camponotus herculeanus (L.). Data pertaining to carabid and ant activity-abundance were collected over a chronosequence of successional forest stages by pitfall trapping. The data were analyzed for the effects of canopy cover, vegetation, and ant influence on carabid species assemblages. Carabids were shown to be influenced by the presence of ants on the basis of a pattern of avoidance, and the frequency of carabid injuries were significantly related to F. aserva activity-abundance. An experiment where F. aserva nests were introduced into a clearcut was conducted to further examine this relationship confirmed that carabid activity-abundance is affected by ant presence. --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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".