Lost in Space: Preference and Performance of Parnassius smintheus Feeding on Sedum lanceolatum and Rhodiola integrifolia
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
A variety of factors affect how much certain plants are eaten by herbivorous insects. In the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada, Parnassius smintheus larvae have been described as virtually monophagous on Sedum lanceolatum, however a second host plant Rhodiola integrifolia is found in the region. We explore the differences in herbivory, larval performance, and oviposition between host plants. We also surveyed host plant abundance in the field to determine the amount of feeding damage on both species. In the lab, we found that there was no preference for feeding on S. lanceolatum versus R. integrifolia. The growth and survival of P. smintheus larvae also was not affected by the host plant. In the field we found much lower rates of herbivory on R. integrifolia than S. lanceolatum. We conclude that there are differences in herbivory observed in the field because P. smintheus larvae encounter R. integrifolia much less than S. lanceolatum. Possible mechanisms include the two host plants occurring in different microhabitats, P. smintheus females not ovipositing near R. integrifolia, or P. smintheus larvae not being able to detect R. integrifolia from a distance.
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 | 0.001 | 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