Spatial occurrence records and distributions of tropical Asian butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect biogeography is poorly documented globally, particularly in the tropics. Recent intensive research in tropical Asia, combined with increasingly available records from citizen science, provides an opportunity to map the distributions of tropical Asian butterflies. We compiled a dataset of 730,190 occurrences of 3,752 tropical Asian butterfly species by aggregating records from GBIF (651,285 records), published literature (27,217), published databases (37,695), and unpublished data (13,993). Here, we present this dataset and single-species distribution maps of 1,576 species. Using these maps, along with records of the 2,176 remaining species, we identified areas of limited sampling (e.g., Myanmar and New Guinea) and predicted areas of high diversity (Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo). This dataset can be leveraged for a range of studies on Asian and tropical butterflies, including 1) species biogeography, 2) sampling prioritization to fill gaps, 3) biodiversity hotspot mapping, and 4) conservation evaluation and planning. We encourage the continued development of this dataset and the associated code as a tool for the conservation of tropical Asian insects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".