MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977239681 · doi:10.3897/jhr.32.4865

First detection of Agrilus planipennis in Connecticut made by monitoring Cerceris fumipennis (Crabronidae) colonies

2013· article· en· W1977239681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire E. Rutledge, Melissa K. Fierke, Philip Careless, Thomas E. Worthley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hymenoptera Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAgrilusEmerald ash borerBuprestidaeBiologyHymenopteraFraxinusEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoky winged beetle bandits, Cerceris fumipennis Say, digger wasps in the family Hymenoptera: Crabronidae: Cercerini, provision their underground nests with adult metallic wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Researchers, as well as engaged community volunteers, in several states have monitored female wasps returning to their nests as a means to detect invasive buprestid species. In this paper, we report the first detection of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairemore), an invasive beetle responsible for killing millions of ash trees in North America, in Connecticut by C. fumipennis and discuss its relationship to A. planipennis survey efforts by other modalities in the state. We also report detections of A. planipennis by C. fumipennis in Illinois, New York and Ontario; all of which were made after it was known the beetle was in the area. These findings support the use of C. fumipennis as a biomonitoring tool and bolster the use of engaged volunteers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hymenoptera ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207