MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100596961 · doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.03.007

Compatible plant-aphid interactions: How aphids manipulate plant responses

2010· review· en· W2100596961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Biologies · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhloemAphidBiologySieve tube elementBotanyNutrientCell biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To access phloem sap, aphids have developed a furtive strategy, their stylets progressing towards sieve tubes mainly through the apoplasmic compartment. Aphid feeding requires that they overcome a number of plant responses, ranging from sieve tube occlusion and activation of phytohormone-signalling pathways to expression of anti-insect molecules. In addition to bypassing plant defences, aphids have been shown to affect plant primary metabolism, which could be a strategy to improve phloem sap composition in nutrients required for their growth. During compatible interactions, leading to successful feeding and reproduction, aphids cause alterations in their host plant, including morphological changes, modified resource allocation and various local as well as systemic symptoms. Repeated salivary secretions injected from the first probe in the epidermal tissue up to ingestion of sieve-tube sap may play a crucial role in the compatibility between the aphid and the plant.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.192 · 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