MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000200827 · doi:10.1300/j301v03n03_10

The Effect of Pruning on Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp

2004· article· en· W2000200827 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

VenueSmall Fruits Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPruningBiologyGallGall waspHorticultureBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The influence of commercial pruning regimes on the survival of wasps inhabiting stem galls of lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) was studied in 1999 and 2000. Three commercial fields in Nova Scotia were used to examine the effect of mow pruning on wasp survival. Galls were removed from blueberry stems in fall 1999 and placed either above or within the leaf litter in a small blueberry plot or held at 2°C over the winter. Another group of galls was collected in spring 2000 from within and above leaf litter. Wasp emergence was not affected by any treatment showing that mow pruning has no effect on wasp survival. In a second study, mowing was compared to mowing plus burning in either fall or spring. Burning did not affect gall number, but did affect wasp emergence. The poorest emergence from galls was seen in spring burning and those burnt in the fall had lower emergence than from galls that were only mowed. Thus, a spring burn is recommended if growers are concerned about stem gall populations in their fields.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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