Contrasting frequencies of parasitism and host mortality among phorid and conopid parasitoids of bumble‐bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. Phorid (Diptera, Phoridae) and conopid (Diptera, Conopidae) parasitism among four North American bumble‐bee (Hymenoptera, Apidae) species was investigated. Male bumble‐bees experienced a significantly higher incidence of parasitism by the phorid, Apocephalus borealis Brues, and a significantly lower incidence of parasitism by the conopid, Physocephala texana Williston, than did workers. 2. The incidence of parasitism by A. borealis and P. texana varied between bumble‐bee sexes and species in patterns that did not reflect differences in relative host abundance. Differences in foraging behaviour between bumble‐bee workers and males, as well as between species, may explain these results. 3. Bumble‐bee workers and males parasitised by A. borealis had significantly shorter lifespans than unparasitised bees. Based on previous estimates of bumble‐bee mortality, A. borealis parasitism may reduce worker lifespans by up to 70%. In contrast, the mortality rate of bees parasitised by P. texana was not significantly different from that of unparasitised bees. 4. These results contrast with previous work highlighting the importance of conopid parasitism to bumble‐bee populations, and suggest that phorid parasitism may impose greater costs to bumble‐bees than does conopid parasitism in local populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".