MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6987532437

Temporal and Landscape Influences on the Bee Community Assemblage of the McMaster Research and Conservation Corridor

2023· dissertation· en· W6987532437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatPollinatorSpecies richnessPopulationRestoration ecologyAbundance (ecology)Umbrella speciesResource (disambiguation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years the issues surrounding pollinator conservation and pollinator decline has been brought to the forefront of both the public and government. Declines are multifaceted and pollinator conservation and restoration tends to focus on open ecosystems, such as prairie and meadow habitats, where there exists a large body of research on the benefits of restoring such habitats for pollinators. However, this does not address the other ecosystems that pollinators can be found in and what critical role those habitats may play in the lifecycles of those species. I surveyed the bee and wasp community present in the Dundas Valley Region of Hamilton in southern Ontario, Canada across 5 distinct habitat types; open fields, forest edges, forests, forested groundwater fed springs, and wetlands. The abundance and richness of floral resources within these habitats and what role this might play at different times of the year was also surveyed. 10 focal species, belonging to 6 genera were chosen as a subset of the population to test for habitat use and movement on the landscape. I found that all habitat types were utilized by bees and wasps to varying degrees, depending on species, time of year, and resource availability. Males and females of the same species did not necessarily utilize the same habitats at the same time of year and there was clear evidence of population movement between these areas and habitat preference. Showing the clear need for a “big picture” approach to pollinator conservation and a need to move away from the standard restoration practice of simply creating open meadows and prairies. This does not address the diverse and heterogeneous habitat requirements needed over the course of their life cycles. Conservation efforts should focus on diversifying the types of habitats being restored on the landscape and recognizing the importance of existing remnant natural features that may add to the heterogeneity of the landscape and to the benefit of pollinator 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→