MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of larval aggression and mobility in the transition between solitary and gregarious development in parasitoid wasps

2000· article· en· W2128868799 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Boivin, Joan van Baaren

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySympatric speciationParasitoidLarvaCurculionidaeCompetition (biology)AggressionEcologyInsectHost (biology)ZoologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models explaining the appearance of gregariousness in insect parasitoids assume the presence of a tolerance gene that enables nonsiblicidal behaviour in gregarious larvae. Under this assumption, nontolerant individuals should attack and kill tolerant individuals when sharing a host, making this behaviour susceptible to invasion by nontolerant individuals. We propose an alternative hypothesis where gregarious larvae retain their aggressiveness but are less mobile. We tested this hypothesis with two sympatric and congeneric species of Mymaridae, Anaphes victus and Anaphes listronoti, respectively, solitary and gregarious egg parasitoids of a Curculionidae, Listronotus oregonensis. Results obtained in competition experiments and from direct observation of movement in mymariform larvae of both species support the reduced mobility hypothesis. By being immobile while retaining their fighting capacity, A. listronoti mymariform larvae appear to optimize host utilization through gregarious development, but can still defend themselves against sympatric aggressive species.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207