The relative importance of olfactory signaling to fly-moss \nspore dispersal network structure of two sympatric moss \nspecies in Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Newfoundland, Splachnum ampullaceum (herbivore dung scent mimic) and S. \npensylvanicum (omnivore dung scent mimic) grow in bogs on summer moose (Alces \nalces L.) dung and via olfactory and visual deception have their spores dispersed to \ndung by flies. In Chapter 2, the addition of carnivore and herbivore-mimicking scent \nincreased the number of visiting flies, and the addition of carnivore scent attracted \ncarrion flies, and this effect was greatest for S. pensylvanicum. In Chapter three \nconsecutive years of fly trapping data for both species of moss were compared using \nNetwork analyses. Results showed that both mosses attract a generalized fly fauna \n(lower network specialization (H₂average) 0.171), most of which are also associated \nwith summer moose dung (average connectance low 0.799). Also, the fly faunas of S. \nampullaceum and S. pensylvanicum did not differ from each other in all three years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".