MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036391033 · doi:10.1139/z99-191

Senescence in field crickets (Orthoptera; Gryllidae): examining the effects of sex and a sex-biased parasitoid

2000· article· en· W2036391033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David A. Gray, William H. Cade

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOrthopteraField cricketParasitoidCricketZoologySenescenceEcologyPredationHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary theory of aging proposes that senescence is related to decreased selection against deleterious mutations acting late in life. Senescence, i.e., an increase in intrinsic mortality with age, should reflect levels of extrinsic mortality early in life. We tested these predictions using two species of field cricket, Gryllus integer and Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Gryllus integer males are host to a sex-biased parasitoid fly, which orients to the male calling song. As a result, males have reduced life expectancy compared with females in the field. In contrast, G. pennsylvanicus males and females appear to have similar life expectancies in the wild. Thus, we predicted that there would be a significant species × sex interaction, with G. integer males having the shortest life-span. In two replicates, we found that males of both species died at a significantly younger age than females. However, no evidence of a species × sex interaction was found: in the first replicate, G. integer males died earliest, in the second replicate, G. pennsylvanicus males died earliest.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207