MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100663563 · doi:10.4039/ent133215-2

Distinguishing adults of<i>Bracon cephi and Bracon lissogaster</i>(Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of the wheat stem sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae)

2001· article· en· W2100663563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin B. Runyon, Richard L. Hurley, Wendell L. Morrill, David K. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraconidaeSawflyHymenopteraBiologyPEST analysisParasitoidBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wheat stem sawfly, Cephus cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae), has been the most economically important insect pest of wheat in the northern Great Plains since cultivation began (Weiss and Morrill 1992). The wheat stem sawfly was first reported from wild grasses where populations were often highly parasitized by a number of parasitoids, including Bracon (= Microbracon) cephi (Gahan) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Criddle 1923; Ainslie 1929). A similar species, Bracon lissogaster Muesebeck, was later reported to also attack C. cinctus larvae (Muesebeck 1953; Somsen and Luginbill 1956). These parasitoids are now prevalent in wheat in some regions of Montana (Morrill et al. 1994, 1998; Morrill 1997). The life histories and phenologies of these sympatric idiobiont ectoparasitoids are similar. The ability to distinguish B. cephi from B. lissogaster is essential in elucidating their effects on populations of C. cinctus . We examined 159 females and 123 males of B. cephi from Chouteau, Hill, Stillwater, Teton, and Toole counties in Montana; Burke, Burleigh, Rolette, and Williams counties in North Dakota; Rock County in Minnesota; and southem Alberta (Rockyford and Consort). The 254 females and 215 males of B. lissogaster examined were from Chouteau, Hill, Teton, and Toole counties in Montana. Holotypes were compared to verify identifications.

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 score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207