MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990801666 · doi:10.1086/317900

Developmental Potential of Galls Induced by <i>Diplolepis rosaefolii</i> (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) on the Leaves of <i>Rosa virginiana</i> and the Influence of <i>Periclistus</i> Species on the <i>Diplolepis rosaefolii</i> Galls

2001· article· en· W1990801666 on OpenAlexaff
Debby A. LeBlanc, Christian R. Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGallBotanyLarvaParenchymaGall waspHymenopteraShrub

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The larval stages of the cynipid wasp Diplolepis rosaefolii induce the formation of single‐chambered, lenticular galls on the leaves of the wild shrub rose, Rosa virginiana. The development of galls induced by D. rosaefolii was studied using light and scanning electron microscopy. The gall consists of four tissue layers, which surround a centrally located larval chamber. These include an outermost dermal layer, underlying parenchyma, sclerenchyma, and nutritive tissue. Development in the D. rosaefolii galls involves a number of characteristics that are unique to this gall and differ markedly from development in other Diplolepis galls studied. These characteristics include the presence of double sclerenchymal layers and vascularization embedded between the sclerenchyma. Periclistus is an inquiline in the galls induced by D. rosaefolii. Under the influence of Periclistus larvae, a number of morphological changes, including an increase in the number of larval chambers, are observed in the galls. Changes in tissue type, proportion, and overall morphology exhibited by Periclistus‐modified galls are also studied using conventional light microscopy techniques.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207