MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247389132 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/4k2yt

A DNA investigation into the mysterious disappearance of the Rocky Mountain grasshopper, mega-pest of the 1800s

2017· preprint· en· W4247389132 on OpenAlexfundno aff
W. Chapco, G. Litzenberger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Natural Sciences of Drexel UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityColorado State University
KeywordsGrasshopperDemiseMitochondrial DNAEcologyPEST analysisBiologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Extant taxonSister groupZoologyEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treePaleontologyBotanyCladeGeneticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mysterious extinction of the Rocky Mountain Grasshopper, Melanoplus spretus, a major pest species on the prairies and plains of the 1800s, is truly a remarkable event in the history of agriculture. Recently, we obtained specimens of M. spretus from museums and from 400-year-old glacial deposits in Wyoming. We report success in obtaining mitochondrial DNA sequences from both sources. This permitted us to examine two issues surrounding the species’ disappearance. First, a long-standing view that M. spretus and the extant species Melanoplus sanguinipes are (if not phase transforms of one another) sister taxa, is disputed, but cannot be rejected with certainty. Interestingly, there is some evidence that suggests there may be a closer affinity with another member of the Mexicanus species-group, Melanoplus bruneri. Second, because M. spretus still possesses considerable nucleotide diversity (1.15 ± 0.19%), a depletion of variation cannot be considered a factor contributing to its demise.

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)0.001
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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207