MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172171 · doi:10.1099/00222615-27-1-59

ASPECTS OF BEE BIODIVERSITY, CROP POLLINATION, AND CONSERVATION IN CANADA

2002· article· en· W3172171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. W. Richards, Peter G. Kevan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Microbiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityPollinationPollinatorGeographyAgroforestryEcologyAgricultureHabitatBiologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spontaneous appearance of unusual colony forms was observed during prolonged growth of Bacteroides gingivalis W50 in a chemostat. Two variants were selected for further study which could be distinguished from the parent strain by the rate and intensity of pigmentation of their colonies. For example, after anaerobic incubation for 14 days, variant W50/BR1 produced brown colonies whereas those of the parent strain were black; in contrast, variant W50/BE1 did not show signs of pigmentation until incubation had continued for 21 days. In subsequent studies in the chemostat, variant W50/BE1 bred true even after prolonged growth whereas other colony forms appeared after incubation of variant W50/BR1 for 14 days. The relatedness of W50/BR1 and W50/BE1 to the parent strain was confirmed by comparisons of the whole-cell fatty-acid profiles, the patterns of pre-formed enzymes and by the metabolic end products after growth. However, the variants did differ from the parent strain in their virulence in a mouse pathogenicity model. The parent strain killed all mice given infective doses greater than 5 x 10(8) cfu whereas W50/BR1 was much less virulent (2 out of 10 mice killed and higher infective doses needed for higher mortality rates) and W50/BE1 was avirulent at all infective doses tested.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical MicrobiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207