Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▪ Abstract Herbivore offense describes traits that allow herbivores to increase their feeding and other uses of host plants when these uses benefit the herbivores. We argue that ecological interactions and coevolution between plants and herbivores cannot be understood without an offense-defense framework. Thus far, plant defense theory and data have far outpaced knowledge of herbivore offense. Offensive tactics include feeding and oviposition choices, enzymatic metabolism of plant compounds, sequestration, morphological adaptations, symbionts, induction of plant galls, and induced plant susceptibility, trenching, and gregarious feeding. We propose that offensive tactics can be categorized usefully depending upon when they are effective and whether they are plastic or fixed traits. The advantages of offensive traits have not been adequately described in terms of herbivore fitness. Similarly, a more complete understanding of the costs and limitations of offensive traits will help put the herbivore back in plant-herbivore interactions and coevolution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it