MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Mating Status and Parasitoid Density on Superparasitism and Offspring Fitness in <I>Tiphodytes gerriphagus</I> (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae)

2000· article· en· W2174305946 on OpenAlexaff
João M. Sousa, John R. Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyParasitoidFecundityLongevityScelionidaeHymenopteraMatingZoologyOffspringLarvaEcologyPopulationDemographyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory experiments investigated the effects of mating status and wasp density on frequency of superparasitism, development time, longevity, and fecundity of offspring of the egg parasitoid Tiphodytes gerriphagus Marchal. When individual females searched a patch over a 24-h period the number of probes per egg from mated wasps was higher than that from unmated wasps, but there was no difference in number of larvae found per egg during dissections. When groups of 5 females searched a patch together, both number of probes per egg and number of larvae per egg increased significantly compared with that of individual females. Superparasitism occurred most frequently when eggs were simultaneously exposed to 5 females, and mated groups of females superparasitized more frequently than unmated groups (frequencies of 78.1 and 62.9%, respectively). Development time of wasps in superparasitized eggs was longer than that of wasps in singly parasitized eggs. Longevity of adult male parasitoids was not affected by having come from superparasitized eggs, but female longevity was decreased significantly. Mated and unmated females showed no significant differences in fecundity, regardless of whether they had emerged from superparasitized or singly parasitized eggs.

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 score0.263

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207