Spiders and ants associated with fallen logs in Forillon National Park of Canada, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Downed woody material (fallen logs) offers spiders (Araneae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ideal nesting and foraging sites. In a maple forest of Forillon National Park, I compared spider and ant assemblages on, adjacent to, and away from fallen logs, and on these I tested the effects of log type and decay stage. In a second study, spider and ant assemblages were compared on, adjacent to, and away from fallen logs in different forest types. In the first experiment spiders were highly affected by trap placement, and diversity was highest on the wood surface compared to the forest floor. In contrast, wood type and decomposition stage of logs had few significant effects on spiders. Log type did not affect the estimated number of spider species nor the spider catch rates. Decomposition stage did not affect spider collections, but less decayed logs were more diverse in spider than heavily decayed logs. The second experiment showed that use of dead wood by spiders depends on forest type. Ant diversity and abundance was generally low, making it difficult to offer concrete conclusions related to log use by ant assemblages. This work brings additional support for the important role of dead wood to forest arthropod biodiversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".