Canopy and understorey insect communities of sugar maple and white pine forests of the south-central Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canopy arthropods of eastern temperate forests in Canada are poorly known. Differences in abundance, diversity, and richness of selected taxonomic groups were compared between the canopy and the understorey for two dominant forest types in the region: white pine (Pinus strobus) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). A bow-and-arrow technique was used to place flight-interception traps in the canopy at 18 sites, with paired understorey traps placed directly below for comparison. The greatest amount of variation in arthropod communities was explained by the position of the trap's collecting bottle (upper or lower). Community composition of selected taxa (102 taxonomic groups, hymenopteran families, mymarid genera, and cerambycid species) differed between heights and forest types. Measures of richness also varied according to height and tree species; combined sampling showed higher asymptotic richness than sampling at only one height or in one forest type, emphasizing the need to include different forest types and strata for biodiversity monitoring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".