MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1837623452 · doi:10.1111/eea.12335

Plant module size influences the intra‐tree distribution and abundance of a shoot‐boring sawfly in young balsam fir

2015· article· en· W1837623452 on OpenAlexafffund
Rob Johns, Sara Edwards, Drew Carleton, Andrew Morrison, Benoit Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsForest Protection Limited (Canada)Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsSawflyShootBalsamBiologyAbies balsameaBotanyCrown (dentistry)TenthredinidaeHorticultureLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Field surveys were carried out to assess the effects of intra‐tree variation in developing shoot length within and among crown levels on the density and abundance of the balsam shoot‐boring sawfly, P leroneura brunneicornis R ohwer ( H ymenoptera: X yelidae), in young balsam fir, A bies balsamea (L.) M ill. ( P inaceae). Overall, cardinal direction had no influence on shoot‐borer density or abundance; however, the highest percentage and abundance of bored shoots occurred on intermediate‐sized shoots within the crown (i.e., in the mid‐crown and on the distal‐lateral and medial‐lateral shoots). Comparatively, few shoot borers occurred in the upper or lower crown levels, or on the relatively large terminal shoots within branches. This distribution appears indicative of the higher suitability of intermediate‐sized shoots within hosts for either egg lay or larval performance. Results of this study are most consistent with predictions of the ‘optimal module size’ hypothesis, which posits that herbivore responses to plant module size should reflect the balance of tradeoffs between utilizing relatively large, nutritious shoots vs. small, more easily exploited shoots.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207