MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008376842 · doi:10.4039/n05-088

Modification of galls of<i>Diplolepis triforma</i>(Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) by the parasitoids<i>Eurytoma spongiosa</i>(Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) and<i>Glyphomerus stigma</i>(Hymenoptera: Torymidae)

2006· article· en· W2008376842 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan J. Leggo, Joseph D. Shorthouse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Geographic Society
KeywordsGallHymenopteraBiologyParasitoidBotanyAphidInsect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stem galls induced by the cynipid Diplolepis triforma Shorthouse and Ritchie are frequently inhabited by several species of parasitic chalcids and ichneumonids that consume inducers or other parasitoids. Two of these parasitoids, the eurytomid Eurytoma spongiosa Bugbee and the torymid Glyphomerus stigma (Fabr.), consume gall tissues after they have consumed their insect hosts and are considered entomophytophagous. Both are koinobiont ectoparasitoids. Eurytoma spongiosa oviposits within gall chambers and attacks larvae of the inducer throughout the summer season, from the early growth phase of the galls until the galls mature. If the inducer is killed by E. spongiosa in early summer, nutritive gall cells degenerate into vacuolate parenchyma and are consumed. If the inducer is killed later in the summer, when galls begin to mature, nutritive cells persist in the chambers for about 1 week before degenerating. Glyphomerus stigma kills and consumes inducer larvae when galls are maturing. New nutritive cells appear under the influence of G. stigma and are then consumed. The ability of entomophytophagous chalcids to promote the formation of gall cells provides insight into the derivation of the gall-inducing guild.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207