Cost of crop losses in processing tomato and cabbage in southwestern Ontario due to insects, weeds and/or diseases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative importance of insects, weeds and diseases to yield losses in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.) was measured by comparing yields in the presence and absence of appropriate control programs. In the absence of any pest control, average crop losses exceeded 80% in both crops. Average yield losses due to weeds alone approached 80% in processing tomato and 60% in cabbage. Insects alone did not significantly reduce yield of processing tomato in either year. In the absence of insect control, significant yield loss in cabbage approached 50% in only one year. When diseases were not controlled, yield of processing tomato declined significantly by nearly 30% in one trial. Failure to control disease had no significant impact on cabbage yield in this study. Monetary losses and costs of each management program were calculated. Key words: Tomato, cabbage, yield loss, insects, weeds, diseases
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it