MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132961553

Effect of Ecological Restoration on Plant-Pollinator Networks in Urban Meadows

2022· dissertation· W7132961553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sisley Carolina Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestoration ecologySpecies richnessUrbanizationSpecies evennessHabitatAbundance (ecology)Native plantPlant community
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementing restoration and management practices that aim to replicate natural areas within urban green spaces have been demonstrated to promote native species success and combat negative effects of urbanization, such as habitat loss. In my thesis, I set out to determine the impacts of urban green space restoration on wild bee communities to understand how plant richness, surrounding urbanization level, and restoration age support these critically important species. To do this, I evaluate wild bee-plant interaction networks, and wild bee diversity across a multi-year, early-successional meadow restoration project in the City of Toronto in Canada. Bee abundance and richness were positively correlated with restoration year, and bee community evenness was negatively correlated with restoration year. Plant-pollinator networks were specialized, but consisted of several dominant plant species, suggesting that future conservation efforts should focus on supporting the rare and underrepresented bee genera present in this study which may be more susceptible to disturbance.

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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→