MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonreproductive Effects of Insect Parasitoids on Their Hosts

2018· review· en· W2895846499 on OpenAlexaff
Paul K. Abram, Jacques Brodeur, Alberto Urbaneja, Alejandro Tena

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.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207