MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003581629 · doi:10.1300/j237v12n01_03

Apparent Increase in Biomass and Seed Productivity in Hemp<i>(Cannabis sativa)</i>Resulting from Branch Proliferation Caused by the European Corn Borer<i>(Ostrinia nubilalis)</i>

2007· article· en· W2003581629 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest Small, David Marcus, G. Butler, A. R. McElroy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Hemp · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOstriniaEuropean corn borerCannabis sativaBiomass (ecology)ProductivityBiologyPyralidaeAgronomyBotanyToxicologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner), or ECB, is a major pest of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). During the course of a study of hemp germplasm and cultivar accessions, the ECB attacked the vertical stem leader of hundreds of plants. At the site of invasion the main stem was typically destroyed, and the plant became strongly branched. Although the damaged plants were an average 9% shorter, mean shoot weight was 20% heavier. Seed productivity was also greater, based on a visual scale. The practical significance of such an “overcompensation” response to insect damage, with damaged plants growing more robustly and productively than their undamaged counterparts, is controversial. Certainly, some aspects of productivity, such as fibre quality, are detrimentally affected by the ECB. The insect showed a preference for larger plants, but was indifferent to the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, the chief intoxicant of C. sativa.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial HempSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207