MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044054151 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01703

Nitrogen and Ergosterol Concentrations Varied in Live Jack Pine Phloem Following Inoculations With Fungal Associates of Mountain Pine Beetle

2020· article· en· W3044054151 on OpenAlexafffund
Sydne Guevara‐Rozo, Altaf Hussain, Jonathan A. Cale, Jennifer G. Klutsch, Rahmatollah Rajabzadeh, Nadir Erbilgin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsPhloemInoculationErgosterolBotanyBiologyPinus <genus>Horticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) contain some of the most ecologically and economically important insect species of conifer forests due to their ability to kill a large number of trees during periodic outbreaks, with cascading consequences for ecosystem function (Kurz et al., 2008; Bentz et al., 2010; Hicke et al., 2012; Seidl et al., 2014). Fungal symbionts associated with bark beetles can amplify the beetles’ damage by promoting successful host colonization and development (Harrington, 2005; DiGuistini et al., 2007; Six and Wingfield, 2011; Six, 2012; Wang et al., 2013, 2014; Therrien et al., 2015; Cale et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2019). In particular, fungal symbionts can facilitate beetle nutrition by either serving as a direct dietary substrate (e.g., ergosterol) , or indirectly concentrating host plant nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) (Ayres et al., 2000; Bleiker and Six, 2007; Goodsman et al., 2012). Although bark beetle species have multiple species of symbiotic fungi (Klepzig and Six, 2004; Klepzig et al., 2004; Roe et al., 2011a), how these fungi differ in the nutritional benefits they provide to the beetles is poorly understood.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207