MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154827744 · doi:10.1111/evo.14233

Sex, males, and hermaphrodites in the scale insect <i>Icerya purchasi</i> *

2021· article· he· W3154827744 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Mongue, Sozos Michaelides, Oliver Coombe, Alejandro Tena, Dong‐Soon Kim, Benjamin B. Normark, Andy Gardner, Mark S. Hoddle, Laura Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch on scale insects
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiologySelfingOutbreeding depressionScale insectMating systemMatingHaplodiploidyZoologyEvolutionary biologyReproductive isolationInsectEcologyInbreedingGeneticsPloidyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Androdioecy (the coexistence of males and hermaphrodites) is a rare mating system for which the evolutionary dynamics are poorly understood. Here, we investigate the cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi, one of only three reported cases of androdioecy in insects. In this species, female-like hermaphrodites have been shown to produce sperm and self-fertilize. However, males are ocassionally observed as well. In a large genetic analysis, we show for the first time that, although self-fertilization appears to be the primary mode of reproduction, rare outbreeding events do occur in natural populations, supporting the hypothesis that hermaphrodites mate with males and hence androdioecy is the mating system of I. purchasi. Thus, this globally invasive pest insect appears to enjoy the colonization advantages of a selfing organism while also benefitting from periodic reintroduction of genetic variation through outbreeding with males.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicResearch on scale insectsFrench-language works237,207