MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415924114 · doi:10.1656/045.023.0203

Identification of<i>Mompha capella</i>Busck, a Microlepidopteran Predator of an Endangered Plant,<i>Crocanthemum canadense</i>(L.) Britton, in Nova Scotia

2016· article· en· W2415924114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie N. White, Donald T. Stewart, N. Kirk Hillier, Rodger C. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueNortheastern Naturalist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA barcodingOutcrossingNova scotiaEndangered speciesBotanyZoologyEcologyGeographyArchaeologyPollenHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, a small insect was discovered predating seeds of Crocanthemum canadense (Canada Frostweed or Rockrose), which is an endangered plant with small, localized populations in Nova Scotia. This insect targets primarily chasmogamous flowers (insect-pollinated, open flowers) but not cleistogamous flowers (self-pollinated, closed) of Canada Frostweed. This behavior is of concern because a decrease in the number of seeds produced by outcrossing could cause a decrease in genetic variance within populations at affected sites (e.g., Canadian Forces Base Greenwood, NS). We extracted DNA from larvae collected from chasmogamous flowers and used the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene to barcode the DNA. Results from queries showed a 91% match to Mompha (Lepidoptera: Momphidae) species on GenBank, indicating that this insect was a member of the genus Mompha, but that this particular species was not in the database. To further characterize this lepidopteran, we collected and incubated chasmogamous flowers to rear the larvae to adulthood. We identified the reared adults as Mompha capella, a species of Momphidae not previously documented in the Maritime provinces, Canada.

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 score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNortheastern NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207