MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1833265883 · doi:10.1139/cjps2011-045

Aphid parasitoids in biological control

2012· article· en· W1833265883 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

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraconidaeAphidBiological pest controlBiologyAphelinidaeCecidomyiidaeAphididaeParasitoidAgronomyHomopteraEcologyBotanyPEST analysisGall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boivin, G., Hance, T. and Brodeur, J. 2012. Aphid parasitoids in biological control. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 1-12. Aphids are important pests of most cultivated crops worldwide. Among the natural enemies that regulate their populations, aphid parasitoids are commonly used in biological control programs in greenhouses and field situations. They belong to the Hymenoptera (Braconidae and Aphelinidae), and a few species are Diptera (Cecidomyiidae). Aphid parasitoids are themselves exposed to a variety of natural enemies including predators, fungi and hyperparasitoids. The most important impediment to the use of aphid parasitoids as biological control agents remains the production cost to mass-rear parasitoids. Rearing either aphids or directly aphid parasitoids in artificial media could be a solution to produce large quantities of aphid parasitoids at low cost, but such an approach still faces numerous challenges related to the nutritional and physiological requirements of developing aphid parasitoids.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.020 · 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