MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131852631 · doi:10.1079/9781800623545.0062

Collecting, Curation and Rearing of Chalcidoidea

2025· book-chapter· en· W7131852631 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHost (biology)MalaiseEctotherm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews the most effective techniques for collecting Chalcidoidea, including sweep nets and screen-sweep nets, Malaise traps, pan traps, other passive traps, mechanical nets, and pyrethroid sampling. The relative merits of different designs for sweep nets and aspirators are discussed, as are devices or methods designed to separate specimens from plant or other debris. Best practices for storing specimens are reviewed, with particular attention to maintaining specimens in good condition for molecular studies. Methods, materials, and best practices for curating specimens are discussed, including point- and card-mounts, slide mounts, and specimen labels. Various techniques for rearing chalcidoids from host material are compared, including methods specifically designed to rear insects from plant galls.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · 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