MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4249440763 · doi:10.1139/z00-091

Marking decisions and host discrimination in a parasitoid attacking concealed hosts

2000· article· en· W4249440763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas S. Hoffmeister

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOvipositorParasitoidHost (biology)TephritidaeRhagoletisKairomoneHymenopteraParasitoid waspZoologyOlfactometerInsectBraconidaeEcologyBotanyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host discrimination by the parasitoid wasp Halticoptera rosae was found to be based upon an external marking pheromone applied to the surface of rose hips in which the host, a fly (Rhagoletis basiola), had deposited its eggs in the fruit pulp. Female wasps marked the sites by repeatedly dabbing the tip of their ovipositor on the fruit surface and discriminated against conspecific marks through antennal contact with marked sites, resulting in cutting off the behavioural sequence leading to oviposition. The same behaviour was observed when wasps were offered fruits on which flies' oviposition sites were artificially marked with methanol extracts of female reproductive tracts, which suggests that the mark is chemical in nature and that the substance is associated with female oviducts and Dufour's or poison glands. Although the host flies respond to fruits that had been previously searched by wasps, no effect on wasp searching behaviour was found on fruits previously searched by conspecifics but without parasitization of the host. The adaptive significance of marking and discrimination decisions made by the parasitoid is discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→