Insect Diversity and Abundance Determined by Pan Trap Sampling Method at York University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The related data was collected on Tuesday, September 29th 2015, between the times of 3:00 to 4:30 pm, in collaboration with Bonnie Duong, Markian Plawiuk, Muhammad Akram and Daniel Germani . There was a moderate rain, as well as cloud cover, throughout the duration of the experiment. Nine pan traps each were placed in the Danby grassland and Danby Woodlot at York University, Keele campus, Toronto, Ontario. In each location, i.e. woodlot or grassland, nine bowls of alternating colours of blue, yellow and white, were place in a single file linear formation approximately 2 metres apart, for a total of 18m. The bottoms of the bowls were covered with about a centimetre of water to deter the insects from escaping. The traps were then left undisturbed for approximately one hour. Upon returning, the contents of the bowls were emptied into the sieve to better observe the individuals and the RTUs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.017 |
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".