MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024512667 · doi:10.1163/156854105774384714

Steinernema affine (Nematoda: Steinernematidae), a new record for North America and its distribution relative to other entomopathogenic nematodes in British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2024512667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueNematology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEcologyHabitatWoodlandGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Randomly selected ecosystems in the coastal Greater Vancouver, Fraser valley and southern Vancouver Island regions, and in the interior Okanagan region of British Columbia, were sampled for the presence of entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN). Of 133 soil samples, 23 contained EPN (18 with steinernematids and five with heterorhabditids). Three identified species and one unidentified species were found. Steinernema affine and S. kraussei occurred in most EPN positive locations in the coastal regions sampled. Steinernema affine was found in open habitats and S. kraussei in all types of tree habitats. Steinernema feltiae was found in only one location, White Rock, in the Greater Vancouver region, close to an ocean beach. Heterorhabditis megidis occurred in only the drier Okanagan valley region of central, southern British Columbia, which has a more extreme climate than the moist, moderate climate of the coastal region. It occurred mostly in agricultural land represented by orchards, vineyards, and secondary woodland. In field baiting and laboratory experiments S. affine appeared to be a more successful parasite than S. kraussei.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNematologySame topicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest ControlFrench-language works237,207