MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386461833 · doi:10.22543/0090-0222.2431

Characterizing insect communities within thin-soil environments

2023· article· en· W4386461833 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katherine McNamara Manning, Kayla I. Perry, Christie A. Bahlai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Great Lakes Entomologist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNature Conservancy of CanadaKent State University
KeywordsSpecies richnessEcologyBiodiversityBiologyTaxonEcosystemInsectNatural (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural thin-soil environments are those which have little to no soil accumulation atop hard substrates. Many of these natural thin-soil environments, such as alvars, rocky lakeshores or glades, cliffs and cliff bluffs, and barrens, are found in the Great Lakes Region of North America. Due to their ubiquity and ecosystem services they provide, characterizing insects in sensitive environments such as these is important. This study monitored insects in nine thin-soil sites, within three regions, on a 630 km latitudinal gradient in the Southeastern Great Lakes Region of North America from June - August 2019. Over 22,000 insect specimens collected were identified to order or family, and bee specimens were identified to genus or species. We found that overall insect community composition and biodiversity characteristics were similar between the three regions examined. However, the central region had higher taxonomic richness than the southern region. Although unique bee taxa were observed in each region, diversity metrics and community composition of bees were similar among sites. This study provides taxonomic information about the insect, particularly bees, and plant communities in thin-soil environments in this region, which could support conservation and management efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Great Lakes EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207