MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982350828 · doi:10.7202/706125ar

Effecs of damage by wheat bug, Aelia germari [Hemiptera : Pentatomidae], on grain quality and on reproductive performance of the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae [Coleoptera : curculionidae]

2005· article· en· W1982350828 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebiha Fourar, Francis Fleurât-Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsSitophilusRice weevilBiologyCurculionidaeAgronomyEndospermWeevilPentatomidaeHemipteraCultivarWheat grainHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wheat bug, Aelia germari, feeds on developing wheat kernels, causing a loss in baking quality of the harvested wheat (Triticum aestivum). The possible nutritional changes in the bug-damaged kernels after the harvest were tested in a bioassay using the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae, which feeds on the kernel endosperm. The weevils were reared on baking wheat cultivar 'Manon demias', grown in Algeria, with different levels (0, 4, 8 and 13%) of wheat bug (A. germari) damaged kernels. Rice weevil reared on 4, 8 or 13% damaged wheat had a shorter development time than on wheat with no damage. However, pair-wise correlations showed that Dobie's index for susceptibility of grain for stored-products insect attack, number of progeny per female and kernel weight loss were not correlated with the percentage of damaged kernels. Using multivariate analysis, the general characteristics of high quality grain were associated with long development times for S. oryzae, low number of progeny, high baking strength, high falling number, high nitrogen, low ash content, and low assimilable nitrogen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207