Fifty years of entomological research in orchard and vegetable crops in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Columbia has seen tremendous advances and accomplishments in the broad field of entomology over the past fifty years.This is especially true in relation to the orchard and vegetable industries, where entomologists have played essential and often pivotal roles in the production, protection and sustainability of these crops.I have attempted to list as many of the entomologists (and their affiliations) working in orchards and field vegetables as I have been able to retrieve from memory and various archival sources.Unfortunately, to adequately summarize the specific endeavors of the many scientists involved would take more space than allotted for this article.For more in-depth information on the entomologists of BC and their various research specialties, the reader is referred to the joint Entomological Society of BC and Entomological Society of Canada publication 'Entomologists of British Columbia' compiled by P.W. Riegert in 1991.For this paper, I have chosen in part to present a number of the more highly publicized research programs and the entomologists involved that have played pivotal roles in the direction and advancement of entomology in certain orchard or vegetable crops.Since this year marks the 100" anniversary of the Entomological Society of BC, and the 98" Volume of the Journal of the Entomological Society of BC (JESBC), it also seemed appropriate in part to link certain aspects of this article towards key papers published in the Journal since 1951. General TrendsReviewing the past fifty issues of the JESBC was a tremendously educational and nostalgic experience, not only from an entomological point of view, but also as a general interest and historical exercise.Who could resist reading, for example, 'An authenticated case of black widow bite', by Carl and Perry in 1959, or so many of the other key articles that in retrospect helped capture our interest and shape our profession in BC.When I had gathered and summarized all of the papers pertaining to entomology in orchards and vegetables since 1951, I was greatly impressed by the diversity and efficacy of our Society's entomologists, both past and present, and by the ebb and flow of various research themes over time.Volume 47 of the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, issued July 15, 1951, began with an ad by the Nichols Chemical Company congratulating the Entomological Society of British Columbia on its 50" anniversary.I found it interesting to note that there was a total of 8 pages of advertisements by various pesticide companies in that issue, most of which (Monsanto being a notable exception) are no longer in existence.One ad in Volume 49, 1953, had the ominous title 'Improved Controls for Entomologists', and on another page was a photo of two workers (possibly the entomologists referred to in the first ad) wearing no safety equipment, in short-sleeved shirts, applying pesticides in an apple orchard using hand-held sprayers (the chemicals advertized in that ad included DDT, parathion, and lead arsenate).Such photographs of course, are now used to illustrate how 'not' to apply pesticides, and these advertisements went the ultimate way of DDT following the 1954 issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".