MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1725876743

Management Practices for Control of European Wireworms in Canada

2010· article· en· W1725876743 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Joanna L. MacKenzie, J Nelson, Andrew M. Hammermeister

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyPEST analysisCropCash cropAgronomyYield (engineering)Pest controlLarvaAgroforestryIntegrated pest managementAgricultureEcologyHorticulture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant losses in crop yield, quality and marketability have been attributed to wireworms, a pest of growing concern and widening distribution in Nova Scotia and across Canada.
\nWhile the Maritime Provinces harbour indigenous wireworm species, three species introduced to North America from European ship ballast cause the lion's share of damage.
\n
\nThe destructive larvae of these three species, Agriotes lineatus, A. obscurus, and A. sputator, persist in the soil for several years, feeding on the roots of host plants and causing significant reductions in the yield and quality of economically important crops. Root crops such as potatoes and carrots are particularly susceptible because damage (holes produced by feeding larvae) to the new tubers and carrots can appreciably reduce quality, yield and storability.
\n
\nTo control this pest, the adult must be deterred from entering and depositing eggs in the field, the larvae must be deterred from attacking the cash crop and/or the larvae themselves must be controlled. This is a difficult challenge due to the lifecycle, feeding preferences and movement habits of the wireworm.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture)Same topicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest ControlFrench-language works237,207