MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors influencing flight potential of <i>Choristoneura conflictana</i>

2008· article· en· W2041034504 on OpenAlexaff
Christina G. Elliott, Maya L. Evenden

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBiological dispersalMatingPopulationPopulation densityInsectZoologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Factors affecting the flight potential of Choristoneura conflictana , an insect that undergoes cyclical changes in population density, are investigated using computer‐linked flight mills. Female and male moths are flown for a 12‐h period and the longest single flight and total flight distance of each moth is recorded. After flight bioassays, moths are subjected to lipid extraction with a soxhlet apparatus to determine the effect of body lipid content on flight. Larger C. conflictana moths fly farther than smaller moths. Female C. conflictana fly farther than male moths but the effects of both mating status and moth age on the distance flown are dependent on sex. Mated females fly farther than virgins and older females fly farther than young females but these relationships do not occur in males. Body lipid content affects the distance flown by both females and males through a significant interaction with sex and age. The factors examined in this study will vary with density in natural populations and are predicted to be important indicators of flight potential and dispersal in this species.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207