MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oviposition behaviour and response of <i>Monochamus scutellatus</i> (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to conspecific eggs and larvae

2002· article· en· W2066810873 on OpenAlexafffund
Shawna Michelle Peddle, Peter de Groot, Sandy M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsLonghorn beetleBiologyLarvaBark (sound)ZoologyAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The oviposition behaviour of white‐spotted sawyer beetle Monochamus scutellatus (Say) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) females was studied under laboratory and field conditions. Females walked over the bark surface and stopped to palpate it with their labial and maxillary palpi. Once a potential oviposition site was located, the female excavated a scar in the bark with her mandibles, deposited an egg and brown plug in the scar and inserted her mandibles again into the scar prior to leaving the area. Female M. scutellatus preferred to lay eggs on bolts containing no eggs (control) to those containing eggs from other females, but did not show this preference when provided with control bolts and those containing their own eggs. When females were provided with bolts containing their own eggs and bolts containing eggs from other females, they laid more eggs on bolts containing their own eggs. Females laid more eggs on control bolts than on bolts containing their own larvae or larvae from other females. The brown plug in the oviposition scar may provide a protective barrier to the egg, a chemical message that the site is occupied, or both.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207