Variance partitioning of aquatic invertebrate beta diversity on different land management types in Saskatchewan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Diagram shows beta-diversity explained by land management type, landscape, water quality and space covariates across 40 sites. Values within ellipses are the conditional effects after controlling for other covariates (% variation explained and associated p-value). P-values outside ellipses for each covariate are the significances of the marginal effects. Only cases where the % variation was > 0.005 are displayed. The indicator species analysis (r.g.) identified the following taxa as being associated with specific land management types: perennial cover (<i>Tanytarsus sp</i>., [Diptera: Chironominae] test statistic = 0.426, P = 0.0497); minimum tillage (Enchytraeidae [Annelida: Oligochaeta], test statistic = 0.437, P = 0.0421); and conventional (<i>Cymatia americana</i> [Hemiptera: Corixidae] test statistic = 0.420, P = 0.0904, ns). No indicators were identified for organic farms alone. Several indicator species were identified that characterized more than one land management type. For example, for perennial cover and minimum tillage sites, <i>Limnephilus</i> sp. (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae) was the indicator (test statistic = 0.431, P = 0.0528). In the case of organic, minimum tillage and conventional farms, <i>Lestes unguiculatus</i> (Odonata: Lestidae [test statistic 0.397, P = 0.06624]) was an indicator. Interestingly, <i>Lestes</i> spp. and other Odonata are often used as indicators of wetland condition [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0295001#pone.0295001.ref108" target="_blank">108</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0295001#pone.0295001.ref109" target="_blank">109</a>], and possibly surrogates for overall invertebrate diversity (K. McLean, pers. comm.). Finally, for organic, minimum tillage and conventional farms, <i>Rhantus</i> sp. (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) was an indicator (test statistic = 0.398, P = 0.0726).</p>
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".