MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160459496 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3061

Seed parasitism redirects ovule development in Douglas fir

2005· article· en· W2160459496 on OpenAlexaff
P. von Aderkas, Gaëlle Rouault, Rebecca E. Wagner, René Rohr, Alain Roques

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvuleBiologyInsectBotanyHymenopteraHuman fertilizationHorticultureAgronomyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many parasitic species of insects complete their entire development in seeds. They feed off storage reserves within the ovule. These reserves only normally accumulate in fertilized ovules. Consequently, female insects that oviposit their eggs directly into the plant ovule need to be able to select correctly, as unfertilized ovules of conifers normally become so-called empty seed. We provide clear evidence that in conifers, seed-parasitizing insects do not need to discriminate between fertilized and unfertilized plant ovules when ovipositing their eggs. A host-specific insect, the chalcid Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), lays its eggs in ovules of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) before fertilization has taken place in the plant. Oviposition not only prevents the expected degeneration and death of unfertilized ovules, but it induces energy reserve accumulation. Ovules that would otherwise develop as empty seed are redirected in their development by the insect to provide food for the developing larvae. Instead of the insect exploiting normal events during seed development, the insect manipulates seed development for its own reproductive advantage.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→