MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why pest management needs behavioral ecology and vice versa

2007· article· en· W1964448912 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

VenueEntomological Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated pest managementEcologyExploitPEST analysisBiologyBehavioral ecologyAnimal behaviorKairomonePest controlComputer sciencePredationComputer securityZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Behavior manipulation is becoming an accepted tactic in pest management, however, there are many ways in which the approach can be improved. In this review, I explain how and why insect behavioral response to various stimuli can vary dramatically under different conditions and that it is this variable response that must be understood before behavior manipulation becomes widely accepted in pest management programs. I propose that entomologists use concepts from behavioral ecology to manipulate pest behavior in a predictable manner. The key is to study behaviors that maximize fitness in natural environments and then exploit these behaviors in agriculture. I provide examples from a range of behavior manipulation tactics, including use of attracticides, kairomone‐mediated biological control, use of marking pheromones, and push‐pull manipulation.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.286 · 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