MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232080495 · doi:10.1006/bijl.2001.0575

Phylogenetics of gall-inducing thrips on Australian Acacia

2001· article· en· W4232080495 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David C. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPhylogeneticsGallArthropod mouthpartsMolecular phylogeneticsThripsMonophylyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)BotanyCladeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of DNA sequence data from four genes (Elongation Factor-1α, wingless, 16S rDNA and cytochrome oxidase I) yielded a well-resolved, well-supported phylogeny for all 21 species of gall-inducing thrips found on Australian Acacia. This phylogeny was then used to investigate the evolution of various behavioural and life history traits, and to examine the level of agreement with the taxonomy of the group. Our results suggest that there may have been a single origin of soldier castes in gall-inducing thrips. Examination of the distribution of the three primary life history strategies employed by these thrips (pupating in the gall, pupating in soil with soldier castes and pupating in soil without soldier castes) indicates that two of the strategies may have evolved as a result of factors associated with host plant affiliations or through parasite pressure. Our phylogeny does not support the existing generic classification of the group in that the genera are not monophyletic, nor does it lend itself to a clear solution to improve the classification in accordance with the phylogeny.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207