MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146292317 · doi:10.1603/an12113

Buprestidae Collected as Prey by the Solitary, Ground-Nesting Philanthine Wasp <i>Cerceris fumipennis</i> (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae) in North Carolina

2013· article· en· W2146292317 on OpenAlexaff
Whitney G. Swink, Steven M. Paiero, Christine A. Nalepa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNorth Carolina State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBuprestidaeAgrilusBiologyEmerald ash borerForagingHymenopteraEcologyPredationNest (protein structural motif)Fraxinus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTBACT The solitary, ground-nesting crabronid wasp Cerceris fumipennis Say excels at detecting buprestid diversity in a given geographic area, and after the introduction of the invasive pest emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) to the United States in 2002, has been developed as an effective tool for the biosurveillance of pest Buprestidae in eastern North America. Here we report records of Buprestidae collected from foraging C. fumipennis in 13 North Carolina counties over the course of three seasons (2009–2011). Nests of the wasp were located, and beetle prey collected from foraging females in three geographic regions, with a concentration on the western, mountainous area of the state. In total, 909 beetles were collected, comprising 52 buprestid species that included eight native pests and 17 species of Agrilus. Our results emphasize the utility of C. fumipennis in documenting buprestid biodiversity and in detecting forest pests. Eight new state records and five new prey records for the wasp are here recorded.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207