The Native Bee Fauna and its Floral Relations in The City of Calgary, Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes work conducted as part of an Urban Alliance contract with The City of Calgary. We sought to further our knowledge of native bee species’ occurrence, and the floral relations of the diverse fauna found within Calgary. Building on the foundation of our pilot project (2017-2019) examining native bee diversity in habitats adjacent to wetlands in The City of Calgary, we conducted a survey of the native bees in The City of Calgary, and documented the associations between common flowering plants and native bees. We then estimated the richness (i.e., “how many species?”) and abundance (i.e., “how many visitors?”) of native bee visitors to native plant species occurring in wetlands and adjacent habitats. Our survey enabled us to rank the contribution of each of these plant species to native bee communities. This information is a key consideration for decision-makers working to increase ecosystem complexity, resilience, and productivity in similar sites throughout The City, as it allows them to make restoration decisions that will support richer and larger communities of wild bees. To allow engagement beyond the scope of our work, we also launched a citizen science project, the Calgary Pollinator Count (https://ucalgary.ca/sustainability/our-sustainable-campus/bee-campus/bee-citizen-scientist), to engage the wider Calgary community in understanding and documenting native bee and insect biodiversity in The City of Calgary.
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.
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) | 0.012 | 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 it