MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987653981 · doi:10.4039/tce.2013.24

Host–tree oviposition preference of balsam fir sawfly, <i>Neodiprion abietis</i> (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae), in New Brunswick, Canada

2013· article· en· W1987653981 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rob Johns, Jeffrey G. Fidgen, Don P. Ostaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalsamSawflyAbies balsameaPinaceaeBiologyHost (biology)HymenopteraBotanyBlack spruceBuprestidaeChoristoneura fumiferanaHorticultureTortricidaePEST analysisEcologyTaigaSpruce budwormPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laboratory experiments using field-collected females were carried out to determine the oviposition preference of the balsam fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis (Harris) (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) in New Brunswick, Canada. Unmated adult females given no choice among host–plant foliage laid ∼98% of available eggs on balsam fir (Abies balsamea (Linnaeus) Miller; Pinaceae), but only 8% and 10%, respectively, on white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss; Pinaceae) and black spruce (Picea mariana (Miller) Britton, Sterns, and Poggenburg). Given a choice among shoots from all three hosts in the same chamber, unmated females laid all but one egg in balsam fir. Host plant had no effect on female longevity, although there were nearly four- to eightfold more empty egg slits on balsam fir needles, owing presumably to the greater activity of females on this preferred host foliage.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207