MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence for long‐distance, chemical gall induction by an insect

2003· article· en· W1985832350 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie L. Sopow, Joseph D. Shorthouse, Ward B. Strong, Dan T. Quiring

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaLaurentian UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthropod mouthpartsInsectBiologyHerbivoreGallPhloemChemical ecologyChemical defenseOvipositorBotanyStimulus (psychology)XylemEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractWe report that a chemical stimulus from a herbivore, a galling insect, changes plant morphology and physiology to benefit the herbivore. Previous studies could not determine whether insect galls are induced by mechanical or chemical stimuli because feeding and oviposition both occurred at the site of gall formation. We report that the mouthparts of a spruce‐galling insect,Adelges cooleyi, were inserted in stem phloem cells far from induced galls, that tissues between mouthparts and galls appeared normal, and that the ability to initiate galls was inversely correlated with distance from buds (potential gall sites). Thus the effects of chemical stimuli were unambiguously separated from any mechanical influence of probing stylets or ovipositors. Our results strongly suggest that galls were induced by a chemical stimulus transported to buds via vascular tissue and that its efficacy was dose‐dependent.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207