Biology and phenology of<i>Cecidophyopsis psilaspis</i>(Acari: Eriophyidae) on Pacific yew (Taxaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The biology and phenology of the yew big bud mite,Cecidophyopsis psilaspis(Nalepa, 1893), were studied on Pacific yew,Taxus brevifoliaNutt., in British Columbia, Canada. The mite showed the typical life cycle of eriophyoids on evergreen hosts, with all stases being present throughout the year. The numbers ofC. psilaspis, which colonized both vegetative and reproductive buds, peaked in May to August, with the lowest numbers in March and October and the highest numbers in June. Mite numbers differed among bud types, with averages following the sequence terminal buds = lateral buds > male reproductive buds > axillary buds > female reproductive buds > latent buds. Very few mites were found in latent buds except during bud formation, when other vegetative buds were unavailable. Reproductive buds were colonized mostly from May to July. There was no evidence of arrhenotoky inC. psilaspis, as the proportion of mites that were females ranged from 54% to 100%. Temperature and predation were considered the likely factors that determine population fluctuations. It was hypothesized thatC. psilaspisabundance increased following favorable spring temperatures and new food resources, whereas predation by other mite species and lower temperatures, which prolonged development, were responsible for the low numbers in March and October.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".