MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098521359

parasitoid of house and stable flies

2015· article· en· W7098521359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPupaDiapauseLarvaInstarParasitoidBiological pest control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the preferred stage of host attacked, seasonal dy-namics, and methods for laboratory rearing for Phygadeuon fumator Gravenhörst, a potential biological control agent of house flies and stable flies in Manitoba. Of 50,842 live sentinel house fly pupae retrieved at two Manitoba dairies in 1996, P fumator parasitized 1,998. A total of 4,691 naturally occurring house fly and stable fly pupae were collected, of which 9.4 % were parasitized by P. fumator. Phygadeuon fumator attacked only pu-pae in the field. When individual females were exposed to pupae and 3rd instar house fly larvae in the laboratory, 52.2 % and 5.8% of observations were taken when females were in contact with containers of the pupae and larvae, respectively. At 22°C, males of P. fumator had significantly shorter development times (24.8 ± 0.1 days, 14 to 35 days; n=615) than females (26.5 ± 0.2 days, 18 to 35 days; n=147). Some P. fumator did not emerge immedi-ately and entered a state of larval diapause. A greater proportion of P. fumator in sentinel pupae entered larval diapause (75.8%) than those in naturally occurring pupae (29.5%). Phygadeoun fumator has considerable potential as a biological control agent of house flies and stable flies, but factors influencing diapause induction and laboratory rearing must be determined. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Manitoba, Volume 55, 199918

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhytochemistry and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207