MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171820492 · doi:10.4039/ent133333-3

Oviposition biology of <i>Pissodes strobi</i> (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on white pine (Pinaceae) under laboratory conditions

2001· article· en· W2171820492 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Trudel, Robert Lavallée, Éric Bauce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCurculionidaeFecundityWeevilWhite (mutation)PopulationBotanyZoologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies were conducted to document the oviposition biology of female white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi Peck. Data were recorded on female fecundity and daily feeding and oviposition activities. In addition, we compared fecundity of 1- and 2-year-old females. Female white pine weevils laid a mean ± SE total number of 132.3 ± 7.5 eggs (range 40–344 eggs) during an average oviposition period of 5.8 ± 0.4 weeks. It is during the first 5 weeks that white pine weevils lay the most eggs, with an egg-laying peak in the second week of the oviposition period. For a few females, egg production did not cease until the 22nd week. There was no difference between the number of eggs laid in the photophase and in the scotophase, but higher numbers of feeding punctures were observed during the night than during the day. The oviposition and feeding results for 2-year-old female white pine weevils were similar to those for 1-year-old females. This information contributes to the management of white pine weevils by providing a better understanding of some of the mechanisms of its population dynamics.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207