Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cocoons characteristic of the prepupal and pupal stages of many insects vary widely in size, durability, structure, shape and colour, as well as in other features such as orientation and attachment to the substrate. In some species they vary seasonally. Most cocoons provide little direct insulation, although they may reduce the rate at which temperature changes, but many provide the mechanical protection required for overwintering beneath insulating substrates such as soil and snow. The cocoons of some terrestrial species prevent inoculative freezing by isolating the integument from ice crystals on the cocoon surface or its surroundings. In some aquatic species, cocoons appear to limit damage by providing mechanical protection during the freezing of surrounding water. Some cocoons help in the acquisition of solar heat: dark structures are especially effective because dark pigments absorb heat, and surrounding layers trap this heat. Insects are immobilized when it is cold and so cannot move in response to environmental threats, and protective cocoons made for winter tend to be more robust than their summer counterparts. Such cocoons protect against abrasion of the waterproof layer of the cuticle. In some species, robust cocoons or complex structures impede natural enemies. Cocoon silk has anti-bacterial and anti-fungal actions. Other cocoons are more or less waterproof. These and other features withstand simultaneous constraints in addition to cold. Therefore, cocoons enhance survival during cold conditions in many species. However, this conclusion is based on fragmentary evidence, and there has been relatively little explicit examination of the roles of cocoons during winter. Therefore, specific work is required to assess resistance to or enhancement of inoculative freezing, resistance to penetration by natural enemies and water, the roles of particular cocoon silks and silk constituents, and the quantitative contributions of cocoons to winter survival in nature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".