MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sprayable pheromone for controlling the North American grape berry moth by mating disruption

2003· article· en· W2009944835 on OpenAlex
R. M. Trimble, P. M. Vickers, Kent E. Nielsen, G. Barinshteyn

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMating disruptionPheromoneVineyardBiologyBerrySex pheromonePEST analysisToxicologyHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1 Sex pheromone‐mediated mating disruption can be used to provide economic control of the North American grape berry moth in commercial vineyards. Controlled release devices that use a plastic tube or polymer to regulate the emission of pheromone have been registered for use in Canada for controlling this pest. These dispensers require manual application, whereas a newly developed microencapsulated formulation can be applied using a vineyard airblast sprayer. 2 The efficacy of 3M Sprayable Pheromone was compared with the efficacy of Isomate ® GBM pheromone dispensers and organophosphorus insecticide for controlling the grape berry moth during the 1997 and 1998 growing seasons. Two application schedules of sprayable pheromone were tested during 1997 and two formulations of sprayable pheromone were tested during 1998. The mating disruption efficiency of the pheromone treatments was compared using pheromone‐baited traps and the efficacy of the pheromone and insecticide treatments was compared by inspecting grape clusters for feeding injury caused by grape berry moth larvae. 3 The estimated mating disruption efficiency of the pheromone treatments ranged from 67 to 100%. There was no difference in the efficiency of the two application schedules of 3M Sprayable Pheromone during 1997. The estimated efficiency of Isomate ® GBM was greater than that of 3M Sprayable Pheromone during the first two flights of 1997. During 1998, the estimated efficiency of 3M Sprayable Pheromone and Isomate ® GBM was similar. 4 The average percentage of grape clusters with grape berry moth feeding injury was greater in the border than in the interior zone on 13 ocassions, and greater in the interior zone than in the border zone of experimental plots on six of the 72 occasions when clusters were inspected during the 2‐year study. 5 The average percentage of grape clusters with feeding injury was similar in plots treated with 3M Sprayable Pheromone, Isomate ® GBM and insecticide during both years of the study. There was no difference in feeding injury in plots treated with 3M Sprayable Pheromone and Isomate ® GBM, despite the greater estimated mating disruption efficiency of Isomate ® GBM. 6 The use of sprayable pheromone may have several operational and cost advantages compared with a hand‐applied dispensing system such as Isomate ® GBM.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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