MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113555652 · doi:10.4039/n10-031

Observations on the feeding behaviour of late-instar larvae of<i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i>

2010· article· en· W2113555652 on OpenAlexaff
Kees van Frankenhuyzen, Sylvain Espinasse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpruce budwormTortricidaeChoristoneura fumiferanaInstarLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyLarvaAnimal scienceIngestionBotanyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laboratory observations revealed that late-instar larvae of the eastern spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana(Clemens)) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) spend most of their time spinning, wandering, and resting; less than 10% is spent feeding. Larvae feed in a discontinuous pattern of short feeding bouts separated by much longer intervals of nonfeeding activity. Over a 2 h observation period, feeding bouts averaged 2.2 min and were separated by 17.4 min intervals for 4th-instar larvae as compared to 3.3 min bouts separated by 33.4 min intervals for 5th-instar larvae. The duration of a feeding bout was positively correlated with the duration of the subsequent interval, not with the duration of preceding intervals, suggesting that feeding-bout frequency is governed primarily by post-ingestion processes. It is postulated that short feeding bouts followed by long intervals limit the window for ingesting an efficacious dose of aerially applied insecticides such asBacillus thuringiensis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207