MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021088839 · doi:10.4039/n02-102

Attraction of <i>Hylastes opacus</i> (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to nonanal

2003· article· en· W2021088839 on OpenAlexaff
Peter de Groot, Therese M. Poland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractionNonanalPinus <genus>Bark beetleBark (sound)Host (biology)BotanyBiologyZoologyChemistryEcologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hylastes opacus Erichson is a recently introduced bark beetle in North America (Bright and Skidmore 1997; Hoebeke 1994; Rabaglia and Cavey 1994; Wood 1992). It is widely distributed in the Palearctic region, where it usually breeds in stumps and roots of dead or dying pines (Pinus) and occasionally other conifers (Hoebeke 1994). Like many species of bark beetles, H. opacus uses host volatiles as cues to search for suitable host material for feeding and establishment of broods. Hoebeke (1994) reported the attraction of H. opacus to ethanol-baited logs of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) in New York, United States of America. In Sweden, Schroeder and Lindelöw (1989) observed H. opacus responding to (−)-α-pinene and to ethanol released separately, but a synergistic increase in response did not occur when these two compounds were released together. In later experiments, Lindelöw et al. (1993) found that traps baited with ethanol alone, ethanol + (−)-α-pinene, and spruce turpentine caught significantly more H. opacus than unbaited traps. In these experiments, (−)-α-pinene alone was not attractive, and when (−)-α-pinene was combined with spruce turpentine and ethanol, it reduced catches of H. opacus. In 2002, while investigating attractants for the pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.) (TM Poland, P de Groot, S Burke, D Wakarchuk, RA Haack, and RW Nott, unpublished data), we unexpectedly found significant numbers of H. opacus in one of our experiments. Here we report that H. opacus is strongly attracted to nonanal.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207