MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970290381 · doi:10.14411/eje.2002.021

The range of insect dormancy responses

2002· article· en· W1970290381 on OpenAlexaff
H. V. Danks

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Entomology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredictabilityDormancyRange (aeronautics)Resistance (ecology)EcologyEvolutionary biologyCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect dormancy responses, in the broad sense of modifications of development, are examined from a general perspective. The range of responses is extraordinarily wide because environments are diverse, different taxa have different evolutionary histories, adaptations are needed for both seasonal timing and resistance to adversity, and not only development but also many other aspects of the life-cycle must be coordinated. Developmental options are illustrated by examining the wide range of ways in which development can be modified, the fact that each individual response consists of several components, and the different potential durations of the life-cycle. The concepts of alternative life-cycle pathways (chosen according to current and likely future environmental conditions) and of active and passive default responses are treated. Also introduced are aspects of variation and trade-offs.Some general conclusions that help in understanding dormancy responses emerge from such an examination. Many options are available (cf. Table 1). The nature of the habitat, especially its predictability, determines the potential effectiveness of many of the developmental options. Any particular set of responses reflects evolutionary history and hence depends on past as well as current environments. It is not necessarily obvious what kinds of selection, especially requirements for timing versus resistance to adversity, explain a particular life cycle. Life-cycle pathways have multiple components, so that components cannot be analyzed in isolation. A given feature, such as delayed development, can have multiple roles. Default responses can be either active (development continues unless signalled otherwise) or passive (development stops unless signalled otherwise), making necessary a broad approach to understanding the action of environmental cues. Even relatively minor effects that fine-tune dormancy responses enhance survival, but may be difficult to detect or measure. Trade-offs are not inevitable, not only when certain resources are surplus, but also because resources in very short supply (constraints) cannot be traded off. Life-cycle components are widely, but not universally, coordinated. These conclusions confirm that the range of dormancy responses is wider, more complex and more integrated than has often been recognized.

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)0.001
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 score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations111
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207