MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102538601 · doi:10.4039/n06-027

Survival of <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i> (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on wheat (Poaceae) with antibiosis resistance: implication for the evolution of virulence

2007· article· en· W2102538601 on OpenAlexafffund
M.A.H. Smith, I.L. Wise, R.J. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMidgeAntibiosisCecidomyiidaePoaceaePopulationVirulenceAlleleLarvaBotanyAgronomyGeneticsGeneBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small numbers of larval wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana Géhin, survived and matured in each of five field seasons in a plot of spring wheat carrying the Sm1 gene for antibiosis resistance against this insect. Wheat midge developing on resistant wheat had higher survival in the laboratory than in the field, but survival was always very low compared with that of larvae developing on susceptible wheat. The mass of these larvae and their survival during diapause were approximately half those of larvae developing on susceptible wheat in both the laboratory and the field. The survival of some wheat midge larvae on resistant wheat, and their reduced mass, is consistent with the hypothesis that a virulence allele allowing adaptation to Sm1 is present in the population. Assuming this to be the case, the frequency of the allele in the population was estimated to be between 0.8 × 10 −4 and 1.6 × 10 −2 , if surviving larvae are heterozygous for the allele. Although rare, a virulence allele occurring at this frequency would likely allow the wheat midge to overcome the resistance gene Sm1 once resistant wheat is grown over a wide area.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207