MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992197431 · doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0236

Insect Pest Incidence and Injury to Herbicide‐Tolerant Canola in Western Canada

2007· article· en· W1992197431 on OpenAlexaffabout
Héctor A. Cárcamo, Robert E. Blackshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBiologyAgronomyCultivarMiridaeBrassicaWeevilFlea beetlePEST analysisHeteropteraLygusCropHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant (HT) canola ( Brassica napus L.) cultivars dominate the acreage planted to this oilseed crop in western Canada. We conducted a 3‐yr (2000–2002) field study near Lethbridge, AB, Canada to compare the incidence and damage of three key insect pests in Roundup Ready, Liberty Link (both HT), and Q2 (a conventional cultivar). Flea beetle ( Phyllotreta cruciferae and P. striolata [Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae]) damage in 2000 ranged from 31 to 32% of foliage consumption at the cotyledon stage, which surpassed economic thresholds but was not related to cultivar. Cabbage seedpod weevil ( Ceutorhynchus obstrictus Marsham [Coleoptera, Curculionidae]) damage to canola pods ranged from 58 to 70 holes per 100 pods in 2001, and lygus plant bugs ( Lygus spp. [Heteroptera, Miridae]) at the early pod stage reached densities of >37 individuals per 10 sweeps in 2000 and 2002. For both insect pests, their damage or abundance was similar among the conventional and HT cultivars. We conclude that, in the short term, the insect pests common in southern Alberta do not exhibit a preference to invade and damage the transgenic herbicide canola cultivars commonly planted in the prairies.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207