MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309712833 · doi:10.1002/ecy.3927

A data set for pollinator diversity and their interactions with plants in the Pacific Northwest

2022· article· en· W4309712833 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura Melissa Guzman, Tyler Kelly, Elizabeth Elle

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersEnvironment CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsPollinatorEcologyAbundance (ecology)PollinationBiodiversityGeographyBiologyDiversity (politics)Pollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollinator populations have declined substantially in recent years. The resulting loss in pollination services has both ecological and economic consequences, including reductions in plant diversity and crop production and lower food security. Data sets that identify pollinators and their plant hosts are of the utmost importance for the light can shed on the main causes of pollinator declines. Here we present a data set that contains 67,954 individual pollinator records. The data were collected across the Pacific Northwest, primarily focused in British Columbia (Canada), with 182 individual sites over 11 years, between 2005 and 2017. This data set comprises multiple studies that aimed to collect information on pollinator abundance, diversity, and their interactions with plants. Overall, the data set includes 937 morphospecies (of which 482 were identified to the species level) of pollinators across 105 families, including data for bees, wasps, butterflies, moths, and flies. We also present information on the interactions of these species, with 473 species of plants. The data set is being released for noncommercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.141 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207