Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review considers in a selective way the literature on diapause in parasitic nematodes, concentrating on four species of animal parasites and three species of plant parasites. We define diapause as a developmental arrest which is temporarily irreversible, so development will not resume, even under favourable conditions, until some intrinsic changes have been completed. Our analysis recognises four stages in diapause. The first is induction, typically brought about by environmental signals (although diapause may be genetically programmed independently of the environment). These environmental signals typically do not have an immediate effect on development, but we recognise a second phase, which we call the diapause pathway, in which worms have been induced to enter diapause at a later developmental stage. Surprisingly, entry into the diapause pathway may under some circumstances be reversible. The third stage is diapause development, a period during which development is suspended, but some ill-understood process must be completed prior to the fourth stage, emergence from diapause. Although diapause development is complete, resumption of development may be further delayed because of conditions in the host or in the environment: the worm is once more capable of development, but development is prevented by unfavourable conditions extrinsic to the worm. These may include the immune state of the host or the total parasite burden in animal hosts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".