MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000711948

Genetics and Light Affect Grouping Behavior in Red Flour Beetles

2018· article· en· W7000711948 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueK-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Red flour beetleInsectIsolation (microbiology)Entomology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although others may see beetles as pests, entomologists would say otherwise. These critters vary in sizes and can be found almost anywhere! Interaction amongst humans and animals within an environment can be pretty similar whether it is environmentally influenced or through genetic material. We often question if habits are done because of genes or because of what is going on around us. Although beetles do not seem interesting, they actually have their own way of socializing. Beetles do not really have the best vison, however they can socialize/communicate using pheromones. Chemical messages are chemicals integrated with behavior (Birch, 1976). Using red flour beetles from Mantitoba, Canada (NDG) and Hudson, Kansas (Hudson) we can see how these beetles from two different areas interact amongst each other. Will there be a distinct isolation due to there strains and if so does this affect how they are within the same strain.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.210 · 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