MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362130473

Induction of summer diapause in the cabbage beetle, Colaphellus bowringi (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) based on a quantitative photoperiodic response.

2009· article· en· W2362130473 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Entomologica Sinica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiapauseBiologyphotoperiodismDay lengthDarknessHorticultureIncidence (geometry)BotanyAnimal scienceLarva
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the nature of photoperiodic time measurement in the induction of summer diapause of the cabbage beetle,Colaphellus bowringi Baly,the incidence of summer diapause of C. bowringi under different long day-lengths and the number of light-dark cycles required to induce 50% individuals to enter summer diapause at 25℃ was investigated in the laboratory. The results showed that the incidences of summer diapause induced by different long day-lengths were different significantly. The incidence of diapause induced by day-length of 15 h or 16 h was the highest,and the incidence of diapause significantly declined when the day-length was longer or shorter than 15 h or 16 h. In the transferring experiments of different light-dark cycles,the incidence of diapause induced by the day-length of 14 h did not exceed 50%. The number of light-dark cycles required to induce 50% individuals to enter summer diapause was 2.61 d at L15∶D9,3.72 d at L16 ∶D8,4.64 d at L17 ∶D7 and 5.92 d at L18∶D6,showing significant differences between the treatments. The results suggest that the induction of summer diapause in this beetle is based on a quantitative photoperiodic response.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Entomologica SinicaSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207