MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Morphometric studies of the genus<i>Sitobion</i>Mordvilko 1914 in Australia (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

2010· article· en· W1515346336 on OpenAlex
Dinah Hales, Robert G. Foottit, Eric Maw

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Entomology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMacquarie University
KeywordsSitobion avenaeBiologyAphididaeAphidBotanyZoologyGenusHemipteraTaxonomy (biology)HomopteraPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The taxonomic status of several Australian populations within the aphid genus Sitobion has been uncertain for many years. Morphometric investigations using principal component analysis and canonical discriminant analysis have allowed us to clarify the relationships of these entities. A form on grasses, referred to in the literature as Sitobion near fragariae , is shown not to separate morphometrically from S. fragariae (Walker) collected in Europe and North America. In contrast, Sitobion miscanthi (Takahashi) Clones 61 (2n = 20) and 34 (2n = 17) separate unequivocally from each other and from Clone 4 (2n = 18), the supposed ancestral karyotype. We argue against describing these as separate species. Sexual forms of S. miscanthi and Australian S. fragariae reared in the laboratory were compared with the sexual forms of European Sitobion avenae (Fabricius) and S . fragariae , respectively. Australian specimens from Smilax glyciphylla and Smilax australis (Smilacaceae) are not Sitobion smilacifoliae (Takahashi).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.248 · 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