Patterns of parasitism among conopid flies parasitizing bumblebees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of host size and host species on the prevalence and fitness of conopid flies (Diptera: Conopidae) parasitizing bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) were investigated. Field data from nine sites across south‐western Alberta, Canada, showed that conopids parasitized, on average, 12.3% of workers and 3.5% of male bees. In general, bee mass was a better predictor of host use and conopid offspring size than bee species. Host mass could not, however, explain the very low prevalence of conopids in the long‐tongued bumblebee, Bombus californicus Smith, or in male bees in general. Conopids predominately infested bees of intermediate size, and as a result, occurred most commonly in the intermediately sized species, B. flavifrons Cresson. Host quality, in terms of conopid offspring size, increased as a non‐linear function of bee size. The results are discussed with respect to the impact of conopids on bumblebee populations, and the relation between host quality and patterns of host use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".