The Bioluminescent Insects of Grandfather Mountain Stewardship Foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Written by managers from Grandfather Mountain Stewardship Foundation, a not-for-profit natural park located in Linville, North Carolina, and a researcher specializing in entomotourism, a specialized form of wildlife tourism, this case study outlines how a wildlife viewing strategy for bioluminescent insects (e.g. fireflies, glow-worms) was developed and implemented in the summer of 2022. Capped at an attendance of 300 participants per night and requiring a pre-online registration, the three separate outings held in the summer of 2022 provided participants with opportunities to view bioluminescent insects. The designated viewing area consisted of a 321 m or 0.2 mi long paved road bordered by woods and one open area. In order to minimize the disruption to the fireflies’ mating patterns, participants were encouraged to use red-light flashlights, and staff were outfitted with the fluorescent vest. Participant discussions typically ended when the fireflies became active around dusk. Consisting of field observations and informal discussions with staff and some participants, and post-viewing reflections by the co-authors, the results provide an overview of bioluminescent insect viewing opportunities in the Grandfather Mountain Stewardship Foundation nature park while also examining the role of interpretive strategies. The conclusion highlights the key findings while providing future research and management strategies. Information © The Authors 2023
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) | 0.000 | 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".