Gregariousness and repellent defences in the survival of phytophagous insects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group living has both costs and benefits for plant‐feeding insects, but defence against predators is the most widely acknowledged benefit. Gregarious folivores typically have warning coloration and elaborate anti‐predator defences. Do these defences protect these species from predation? To see if protection from predators generally results from gregariousness, I compared the shapes of published survivorship curves of externally feeding, gregarious and solitary Lepidoptera and Symphyta. Gregarious species are less likely than solitary species to die in the larval stages. However, solitary species that have anti‐predator defences do not have higher larval survival compared to gregarious species. This result, along with evidence from experimental manipulations of group size, suggests that repellent defences per se do not increase survival of gregarious larvae. Group behaviour is undoubtedly important in affecting the higher larval survival of gregarious species, but we currently cannot determine whether predator learning, dilution of risk, or rapid development contribute most to increasing survival.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it