MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072952230 · doi:10.4039/ent133705-5

Influence of diet on development and oviposition of <i>Forficula auricularia</i> (Dermaptera: Forficulidae)

2001· article· en· W2072952230 on OpenAlexaff
Ghislain Berleur, Jean Gingras, Jean‐Claude Tourneur

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBurrowNymphZoologyForagingEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America, the life cycle of the European earwig (Forficula auricularia L.) can be divided into a nesting phase (hypogean phase) and a free-foraging phase (epigean phase) (Crumb et al. 1941; Behura 1956; Lamb and Wellington 1975). Adults spend the nesting phase in the soil; females burrow into the ground at the onset of the cold weather, lay eggs, and then care for the eggs. Hatching occurs in spring; first- or second-instar nymphs move to the soil surface for the free-foraging period. The earwig, a nocturnal insect, spends the entire daylight period of hiding under trash or in dark crevices. Where two broods occur, females reenter the ground a second time (Lamb and Wellington 1975). Stomach content analyses (Crumb et al. 1941; Sunderland and Vickerman 1980) and food preference tests (McLeod and Chant 1952; Buxton and Madge 1976) revealed that the European earwig is omnivorous. Under laboratory conditions, nymphs fed freshly frozen aphids, Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), survive better than those fed green algae or carrots, develop faster, and produce heavier females (Phillips 1981; Carrillo 1985).

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 score0.012

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207