MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079565161 · doi:10.1080/00779962.2003.9722113

Temperature-dependent development of the Argentine ant,<i>Linepithema humile</i>(Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a degree-day model with implications for range limits in New Zealand.

2003· article· en· W2079565161 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen Hartley, Philip J. Lester

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Entomologist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Society Te ApārangiVictoria University of WellingtonRoyal SocietyUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsLinepithemaArgentine antRange (aeronautics)Biological dispersalHymenopteraBayEcologyDegree (music)Degree dayAir temperatureEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyDemographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, is an invasive species with the potential to cause significant economic and ecological damage in New Zealand. Using published information on rates of development, we induced parameters for a cumulative degree-day model for each life-stage of the Argentine ant.A summary model suggested that complete development, from egg to worker, requires approximately 445 degree-days above a threshold of 15.9°C. Meteorological records of air and soil temperatures indicated a number of sites in New Zealand that fulfil this minimum temperature requirement on an annual basis. Maps based on soil temperature data indicated suitable conditions as far south as Central Otago, while air temperature data predicted a more limited northerly distribution in Northland and Hawkes Bay. Additional factors, such as microclimatic variation, thermoregulatory behaviour, biotic interactions and dispersal opportunities will also be important in determining the precise range limits of the Argentine ant in New Zealand.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand EntomologistSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207