A survey of pollinator assemblies in two contiguous Richmond, Virginia (U.S.A.), urban green spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions between plants and their pollinators provide essential ecosystem services in support of the reproduction and propagation of flowering plants, as well as the nutritive support for pollinators and their offspring. Given the critical nature of these activities, coupled with exponential urban development and the concurrent, dramatic decline in pollinators worldwide, it has become increasingly important to evaluate the complex and specialized interactions between pollinators and their host plants. This includes assessing plant-pollinator interactions within urban green infrastructure. Here, we surveyed floral visitor interactions on nineteen summer-blooming plant species in two contiguous Richmond, Virginia, gardens. We observed 110 distinct flower visitor taxa, with the majority seen on four or fewer plant species. The most common flower visitors were bees, including Bombus impatiens, which was found on every plant surveyed. Although the flower visitor assemblages varied categorically among plant species, in total the two gardens hosted a broad range of generalist and specialist visitors. The results of this survey provide a regional and seasonal perspective on urban green space ecosystem dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".