MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133384051 · doi:10.4039/n03-111

Cumulative temperature requirements and development thresholds in two populations of <i>Dicyphus hesperus</i> (Hemiptera: Miridae)

2004· article· en· W2133384051 on OpenAlexaffabout
David R. Gillespie, Juan Antonio Sánchez, Robert McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiridaePopulationHemipteraBiologyEcologyGreenhouseGeographyAgronomyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cumulative temperature requirements and development thresholds were determined for two populations of Dicyphus hesperus Knight, 1943 to compare their suitability for use in biological control in greenhouse vegetable crops. The populations were from near Summerland, British Columbia, Canada (49°36′N, 119°40′W, at 334 m elevation) and from near Woody, California, United States of America (35°42′N, 118°50′W, at 500 m elevation). Eggs of the California (CA) population had a higher cumulative temperature requirement for hatch than those of the British Columbia (BC) population. Males of the CA population had a slightly lower cumulative temperature requirement for development from hatch to adult than males of the BC population. The populations did not differ with respect to development thresholds. Males of the CA population experienced higher mortality during development at 35 °C than BC males or females of either population. Males and females of both populations developing at 35 °C were significantly smaller than those developing at more moderate temperatures. The differences between populations with respect to development were biologically trivial. With respect to the effects of temperature on development time under greenhouse conditions, the two populations appear to be equally suitable for use in greenhouses.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.278
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 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207