Ecological monitoring in Cambridge Bay (Nunavut): testing the effects of microhabitat and seasonal change on the taxonomic and functional diversity of Arctic arthropod communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic ecosystems are experiencing rapid environmental change and as a result, ecological processes are being altered and overall diversity is being threatened. The establishment of long-term ecological monitoring programs allows governments to track ecosystem changes in order to better adapt future conservation efforts. The overarching goal of this thesis is to field test protocols for monitoring arthropod communities in Cambridge Bay (Nunavut) using taxonomic and functional approaches and to provide recommendations on future ecological monitoring in the Canadian Arctic.Chapter 1 was a literature review and examined the key elements which contributed to the success of monitoring programs. Chapter 2 used field collected data on spider species, important Arctic predators, as a model for testing the effects of microhabitat on biodiversity. Spider assemblages were strongly affected by microhabitat type along a moisture-driven gradient. Species were found to be strongly associated to a single habitat type and spider assemblages were dynamic over time. Chapter 3 examined the entire arthropod community and similar patterns to Chapter 2 were observed. Habitat type and seasonality affected taxonomically (Family and Order levels) and functionally described communities in similar ways. Habitat types contained differently structured food webs and unique peaks of when different arthropods were most commonly collected. There was also evidence to suggest that the same functional roles may be performed by different taxa depending on the habitat type. Functional roles showed variability in their abundance peaks when compared to total abundance trends. Monitoring programs in the Arctic should strive to include arthropods in their protocols and this thesis provides baseline knowledge on how to do so efficiently and cost-effectively. In this thesis, I provide details and recommendations on how, where, when and what to sample along with some inferences as to how arthropods relate to ecological processes and ecosystem structure in Canada's north.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".