MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003033161 · doi:10.1017/s0031182020000037

Life history traits and interactions of <i>Stylops advarians</i> (Strepsiptera) with its bee host, <i>Andrena milwaukeensis</i>

2020· article· en· W3003033161 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zachary S. Balzer, Arthur R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyHost (biology)ZoologyLife historyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specimens of Stylops advarians were sampled by collecting foraging bees of Andrena milwaukeensis along the South Saskatchewan River within Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. As the foraging season progressed from early May till late June over three consecutive years (2016-2018), most stylopized bees possessed endoparasitic adult (neotenic) females of S. advarians protruding from the bee gaster's dorsum. In contrast, very few adult bees stylopized by male puparia, and no free-living males, were encountered. Over the sampling period, prevalence remained around 22% each year; mean intensity was 1.2 (range of 1-3 female parasites per bee); and parasite abundance was 0.27. Also newly reported for Stylops is the occurrence of one bee bearing four Stylops (two neotenic females and two males with puparia), plus another bee with a male puparium extruded from its gaster's sternites. Around 2 May each year, a high proportion of the earliest captured female bees were stylopized. However, non-stylopized female bees typically were not encountered until about 10 days later, suggesting the parasites manipulate female bee hosts to emerge earlier, in close synchrony to male bee emergence. First-instar larvae of S. advarians appeared from 22-25 May, indicating that adults of S. advarians matured and mated at similar times each season.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207