MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonreproductive Effects of Insect Parasitoids on Their Hosts

2018· review· en· W2895846499 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyParasitismParasitoidEcologyTrophic levelHost (biology)InsectZoologyReproductionOffspringPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main modes of action of insect parasitoids are considered to be killing their hosts with egg laying followed by offspring development (reproductive mortality), and adults feeding on hosts directly (host feeding). However, parasitoids can also negatively affect their hosts in ways that do not contribute to current or future parasitoid reproduction (nonreproductive effects). Outcomes of nonreproductive effects for hosts can include death, altered behavior, altered reproduction, and altered development. On the basis of these outcomes and the variety of associated mechanisms, we categorize nonreproductive effects into ( a) nonconsumptive effects, ( b) mutilation, ( c) pseudoparasitism, ( d) immune defense costs, and ( e) aborted parasitism. These effects are widespread and can cause greater impacts on host populations than successful parasitism or host feeding. Nonreproductive effects constitute a hidden dimension of host-parasitoid trophic networks, with theoretical implications for community ecology as well as applied importance for the evaluation of ecosystem services provided by parasitoid biological control agents.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.285 · 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