Sipping on Nectar: Butterflies and Flowers in Oak Savannas on Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photo 1. View of a Garry oak savanna field site in Camrose Park, Victoria, BC, Canada. Oak savannas in the region are characterized by rocky outcroppings, a dense understory of forbs, and an open canopy of mostly Garry oak trees (Quercus garryana) mixed in with Douglas Firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Arbutus (Arbutus menziesii). In front of the treeline, the nectar-less yellow flowers of invasive Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) can be seen. Photo credit: Stephanie A. Rivest. Photo 2. Examples of flowering plants recorded in Garry oak savannas around Victoria, BC. Western Buttercup (top left panel: Ranunculus occidentalis) and Sea Blush (top right panel: Plectritis congesta) are native to the region, while Himalayan Blackberry (bottom right panel: Rubus armeniacus) and Cornflower (bottom right panel: Centaurea cyanus) are non-native. Photo credit: Stephanie A. Rivest. Photo 3. A native Propertius Duskywing (Erynnis propertius) butterfly foraging for nectar on a native White Brodiaea (Triteleia hyacinthine) flower in an oak savanna in Victoria, BC. Photo credit: Stephanie A. Rivest. Photo 4. A native Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui) butterfly foraging for nectar on a native Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) flower in an oak savanna in Victoria, BC. Photo credit: Stephanie A. Rivest. Photo 5. A native Lorquin's Admiral (Limenitis lorquini) perched on a researcher's hand during a field survey of an oak savanna in Victoria, BC. The butterfly's proboscis explores the researcher's skin, hoping to collect the sodium from sweat. Photo credit: Stephanie A. Rivest. Source paper: These photographs illustrate the article “Flowering phenology influences butterfly nectar foraging on non-native plants in an oak savanna” by Stephanie A. Rivest, E.M. Wolkovich, and Heather M. Kharouba published in Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.4004
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".