MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950549437 · doi:10.5524/102208

Supporting data for "Message in a Bottle – Metabarcoding Enables Biodiversity Comparisons Across Ecoregions"

2022· dataset· en· W6950549437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGigaDB · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessArthropodBiodiversityHabitatSpecies diversityBiomass (ecology)Beta diversityMetacommunity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional biomonitoring approaches have delivered a basic understanding of biodiversity, but they cannot support the large-scale assessments required to manage and protect entire ecosystems. This study employed DNA metabarcoding to assess spatial and temporal variation in species richness and diversity in arthropod communities from 52 protected areas spanning three Canadian ecoregions. <br>This study revealed the presence of 26,263 arthropod species in the three ecoregions and indicated that at least another 3,0005,000 await detection. Results further demonstrate that communities are more similar within than between ecoregions, even after controlling for geographical distance. Overall -diversity declined from east to west, reflecting a gradient in habitat disturbance. Shifts in species composition were high at every site with turnover greater than nestedness, suggesting the presence of many transient species. <br>Differences in species composition among their arthropod communities confirm that ecoregions are a useful synoptic for biogeographic patterns and for structuring conservation efforts. The present results also demonstrate that metabarcoding enables large-scale monitoring of shifts in species composition, making it possible to move beyond the biomass measurements that have been the key metric employed in prior efforts to track change in arthropod communities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGigaDBSame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207