MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6949724670 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15748172

Copidosoma floridanum

2020· article· en· W6949724670 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParasitoidBroodPupaHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copidosoma floridanum Copidosoma floridanum could not develop on C. chalcites even though on additional replicates to the trial we confirmed that, during parasitism, eggs were oviposited inside host eggs. The trial on C. chalcites was repeated an additional three times (the last two times using individuals from new specimens collected from tomato fields), and parasitoid development was always unsuccessful. On T. ni as host, the mean (± SE) success of C. floridanum was 24.5 ± 2.88 out of 50 larvae, its mean brood size was 1478.05 ± 20.25 parasitoids per larvae (range: 761–2037), and its development time from oviposition to adult emergence was 33.44 ± 0.14 days, from oviposition to cocoon formation was 21.81 ± 0.13 days, and from cocoon to adult emergence was 11.68 ± 0.06 days. Host mortality on parasitised hosts (T. ni = 4.40 ± 1.02 dead larvae; C. chalcites = 1.40 ± 0.37 dead larvae) was similar (T. ni: U = 49.00, P = 0.971; C. chalcites: F 1,18 = 1.301, P = 0.269) to their respective nonparasitised hosts (T. ni = 3.70 ± 0.80 dead larvae; C. chalcites = 0.90 ± 0.23 dead larvae). The host success was also similar (T. ni: F 1,18 = 0.542, P = 0.471; C. chalcites: F 1,18 = 0.746, P = 0.399) between parasitised (T. ni = 35.80 ± 2.98 larvae; C. chalcites = 32.10 ± 2.32 larvae) and nonparasitised hosts (T. ni = 33.10 ± 2.14 larvae; C. chalcites = 29.10 ± 2.58 larvae). Host mortality was higher in T. ni than in C. chalcites, host success was lower in T. ni than in C. chalcites and was similar between parasitised hosts (F 1,18 = 7.584, P = 0.018; F 1,18 = 47.335, P <0.001; F 1,18 = 0.959, P = 0.340, respectively; Fig. 4). The development times from oviposition to pupa formation and from pupa to adult emergence were similar for hosts that developed into moths from parasitised T. ni and from nonparasitised T. ni eggs, but the time from egg to adult emergence was longer for those developing from parasitised hosts (U = 8748.50, P = 0.076; U = 10 467.50, P = 0.615; U = 11 793.00, P = 0.028, respectively; Fig. 5). The times from oviposition to pupa formation and from oviposition to adult emergence were longer for hosts that developed into moths from parasitised C. chalcites than for those developing from nonparasitised eggs, but the time from pupa to adult emergence did not differ significantly (U = 62 164.00, P <0.001; U = 61 545.50, P <0.001; U = 43 863.00, P = 0.404, respectively; Fig. 5). The development times from oviposition to pupa formation, from pupa to adult emergence, and from oviposition to adult emergence were shorter for hosts that developed into moths from parasitised T. ni than the development times for parasitised C. chalcites (U = 20 287.00, P <0.001; U = 16 150.50, P <0.001; U = 20 252.50, P <0.001, respectively; Fig. 5). Development times from oviposition to pupa formation, from pupa to adult emergence, and from oviposition to adult emergence were shorter for hosts that developed into moths from nonparasitised T. ni than for nonparasitised C. chalcites (U = 1834.00, P <0.001; U = 67 703.50, P <0.001; U = 81 246.00, P <0.001, respectively; Fig. 5).

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207