MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6967067860 · doi:10.5061/dryad.c59zw3r7t

Plant and pollinator interactions from British Columbia from Oak Savannah, Shrub-Steppe, and restored hedgerows

2021· dataset· en· W6967067860 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorPhenologyPollenForbEcosystemVegetation (pathology)Foraging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains the data analyzed in "Guzman, L.M., Chamberlain, S. and Elle, E. (2021) Network robustness and structure depends on the phenological characteristics of plants and pollinators. Ecology and Evolution" The data comprises plant-pollinator interactions collected in three ecosystems (Oak Savannah, Shrub-Steppe and restored hedgerows) from British Columbia. These three vegetation types comprised three different studies. The average distance between sites within studies was 19km, 18km and 29km for the oak savannah, shrub-steppe and hedgerows respectively. For simplicity we use “pollinator” throughout this paper to refer to insects and hummingbirds observed visiting flowers and contacting reproductive organs, although their effectiveness at transfer of pollen has not been assessed. The networks were comprised largely of bees, with wasps and hoverflies also common. Less common were butterflies and beetles. The plants were largely forbs with some shrubs; insect-pollinated trees were not sampled for largely logistical reasons of tree height but tended to be uncommon in these ecosystems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→