The Effect of Pruning on Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".