MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101030593 · doi:10.4161/psb.2.1.3589

Insect Regurgitant and Wounding Elicit Similar Defense Responses In Poplar Leaves

2007· article· en· W2101030593 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

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJasmonic acidBiologyElicitorPlant defense against herbivoryInsectHerbivoreDefence mechanismsCell biologyCaterpillarBotanyGeneBiochemistryLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How plants perceive insect attacks is an area of active research. Numerous studies have shown that regurgitant from feeding insects elicits a defense response in plants, which is often assumed to be distinct from a wound response. We have characterized the inducible defense response in hybrid poplar and found it to be qualitatively similar between wounding and application of regurgitant from forest tent caterpillar. We suggest that this is likely attributable to our wounding treatment which is much more intense compared to most other studies. These overlapping responses appear to be activated via jasmonic acid signaling, and we speculate that they are both triggered by elicitors of plant origin. Wounding would release such elicitor molecules when leaf cells are disrupted, and regurgitant may contain them in a modified or processed form. This hypothesis could explain why some other necrosis-inducing stresses also induce herbivore defense genes.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.215 · 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