MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319862226 · doi:10.4039/tce.2013.35

Fungal symbiont of firebrats (Thysanura) induces arrestment behaviour of firebrats and giant silverfish but not common silverfish

2013· article· en· W2319862226 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Woodbury, Gerhard Gries

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have recently shown that firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard) (Thysanura: Lepismatidae), carry, and deposit with their faeces, the symbiotic bacterium Enterobacter cloacae (Jordan 1890) Hormaeche and Edwards 1960 (Enterobacteriaceae) and the symbiotic fungus Mycotypha microspora Fenner, 1932 (Mycotyphaceae), and that these microbes induce arrestment behaviour and aggregation of firebrats. Here, we tested whether giant silverfish, Ctenolepisma longicaudata Escherich (Thysanura: Lepismatidae), and common silverfish, Lepisma saccharina (Linnaeus) (Thysanura: Lepismatidae), also arrest in response to these two microbes. In dual-choice bioassays, E. cloacae arrested firebrats but not giant silverfish or common silverfish, whereas M. microspora arrested firebrats and giant silverfish but not common silverfish. As close relatives, firebrats and giant silverfish have similar microclimate and nutrient requirements and may use M. microspora as the same aggregation cue when they aggregate in hot and humid microclimates where M. microspora proliferates and breaks down cellulose. As a more distant relative to firebrats and giant silverfish, common silverfish seem to require a different as yet unknown aggregation cue or signal, possibly one that is indicative of the type of microclimate (room temperature; high humidity) they prefer.

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.208
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207