MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112889316 · doi:10.2298/abs1103571p

Biogenic amines in protocerebral A2 neurosecretory neurons of Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae): Response to trophic stress

2011· article· en· W2112889316 on OpenAlexaff
Vesna Perić‐Mataruga, Marija Mrdaković, Milena Vlahović, Larisa Ilijin, Jankovic Tomanic, Dejan Mirčić, Vera Nenadović

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymantria disparRobiniaBiologyLepidoptera genitaliaPopulationDisparTrophic levelBotanyInstarLocustEcologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number, morphometric parameters and amount of aminergic neurosecretory product of protocerebral A2 neurosecretory neurons were investigated in the fifth instar of Lymantria dispar caterpillars, following a suitable or unsuitable trophic regime. Caterpillars originated from two populations (Quercus rubra or Robinia pseudoacacia forest) and were differently adapted to trophic stress, i.e. feeding on locust tree leaves - unsuitable host plant. The number of neurosecretory neurons was higher in the caterpillars originated from Robinia population than in Quercus population, regardless of feeding. A2 neurosecretory neurons, nuclei and their nucleoli were larger in caterpillars fed with unsuitable leaves in both populations. There was more aminergic product in the A2 neurosecretory neurons of the caterpillars fed with unsuitable leaves independently of population origin.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207