MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096858483

MIGRATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MONARCH DANAUS PLEXIPPUS TO CUBA By

2002· article· en· W7096858483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Geology in Latin America and Caribbean
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillerMonarch butterflyKnightActive listeningPerformance artLuckWrightDanaus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

by Cristina DockxTo Nature’s beauty and magicACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Lincoln Brower for introducing me to the monarch butterfly and to the students from his laboratory (who became very good friends as did the monarch butterfly, “the monarch of the team”); and for letting me work in what at that time seemed a “crazy ” project; the migration of the monarch butterfly to Cuba. I would like to thank the members of my committee: Richard Kiltie, Thomas Walker, Jackie Miller and Jon Reiskind, all of whom contributed to the success of my research. I extend special thanks to Richard Kiltie, who has been a supportive, patient, and critical member. Thomas Walker provided me with constructive criticism. Jackie Miller was always interested in my work, and offered me her direct knowledge of monarchs in Cuba. Jon Reiskind always had a smile and a hand when I needed it. for being a part of this project. Sandy Lapis and Richard engaged in the big enterprise of smoothing my grammar and making my ideas flow. This is a tenacious endeavor since English is not my native language. I thank them. I thank my friends, Magola Molina (my mom), Tonya VanHook, Amy Knight and Tom Wunderli (my husband), who gave me logistic support: my husband with his wonderful dinners, Tonya for helping me survive the first years of graduate school, Amy for listening and helping me with the development of this project, and Magola for being “my assistant ” in the field and the laboratory. iv The Tinker Foundation and Sigma Xi provided financial support for the first year of field work. The National Science Foundation grant (Lincoln P. Brower, principal investigator) financed the chemical analyses of the butterflies. Leonard Wassenaar and Keith Hobson (Canadian scientists) finance the majority of the isotopic analyses, I thank them. Lincoln Brower (my advisor) and Richard Wunderli helped me with personal money to pay for the isotopic analyses. I am grateful to them.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany and Geology in Latin America and CaribbeanFrench-language works237,207