MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344651037 · doi:10.1111/een.12311

Hanging in the treetops: an <i>in situ</i> experiment in ancient hemlock assessing outbreak defoliator performance among crown levels

2016· article· en· W2344651037 on OpenAlexafffund
Meggy Hervieux, Dorothy Y. Maguire, Rob Johns, Éric Bauce, Christopher M. Buddle, Dan T. Quiring

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Entomology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of New BrunswickCanadian Forest ServiceMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyCrown (dentistry)ForagingHerbivoreLarvaGeneralist and specialist speciesEcologyClimbingAllometryZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Past studies have shown that both egg lay and larval feeding of a generalist defoliator, pale‐winged gray ( I ridopsis ephyraria W alker) ( L epidoptera: G eometridae), are concentrated in the mid‐lower crown of eastern hemlock [ T suga canadensis ( L. ) C arr.]. 2. Using tree‐climbing techniques, we carried out in situ bioassays in large hemlock trees (∼25 m) to determine whether the observed foraging preferences are adaptive and how they reflect associated intra‐tree variations in microhabitat quality associated with temperature and foliage nutritional quality. 3. In 1 of 2 years, larval survival was significantly higher in the shaded lower versus sunlit upper crown; however, in both years, groups that fed in the sunlit upper crown branches had larger male and female moths and more female‐biased sex ratios. 4. Differences in pale‐winged gray performance among crown levels were somewhat supported by trends in foliage nutritional chemistry but not well‐correlated with variation in temperature. 5. The present study is one of only a few to carry out bioassays on large mature trees and results reinforce the idea that foraging patterns of herbivores are likely to reflect trade‐offs among several factors that vary between sunlit and shaded branches within forest canopies.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207