MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158289215 · doi:10.4039/n03-122

Causes of variation in body size and consequences for the life history of <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i>

2004· article· en· W2158289215 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Smith, R.J. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyLarvaFecundityPteromalidaeMidgeParasitoidPopulationInstarZoologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The body sizes of mature larvae and adults from field and laboratory populations of the wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), were measured to determine possible causes of variation in size and consequences of such variation through the life history. Mature larvae varied eightfold in mass. Female larvae were 80% heavier than males, on average. Variation in mass was associated with both the position of larvae on a wheat spike and the number feeding together on a developing seed. Larvae were 9% smaller when they developed on smaller, later developing seeds and 15%–18% smaller when they competed with five other larvae on an average-sized seed. Fewer small larvae survived winter. Larval density per infested seed increased with number of larvae per spike, suggesting that larval size may have density-dependent population effects. Small larvae produced few adults of Macroglenes penetrans (Kirby) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), an egg parasitoid that overwinters as a larva in the third larval instar of S. mosellana . These effects were probably due to size, but sex may also have been a factor. The size of adults, measured by wing and abdomen length, was also variable, although less so than the size of larvae. Adult size was not associated with time of emergence and both large and small females dispersed, but female fecundity (4–105 mature eggs per individual) increased with body size.

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 score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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