MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029200012 · doi:10.1603/ec13410

Status of <I>Rhagoletis</I> (Diptera: Tephritidae) Pests in the NAPPO Countries

2014· review· en· W2029200012 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wee L. Yee, Vicente Hernández-Ortíz, Juan Rull, Bradley J. Sinclair, Lisa Neven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersWashington State Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPhytosanitary certificationRhagoletisTephritidaeBiologyPEST analysisIntegrated pest managementRange (aeronautics)Host (biology)EcologyAgroforestryBotanyHorticultureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) is an organization comprising plant protection regulatory officials of the three signatory countries: the United States, Canada, and México. NAPPO develops Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPMs) as well as discussion papers on important issues related to plant protection. The Fruit Panel of NAPPO organized a Technical Assistance Group (TAG) to develop a discussion paper on the status of pest species of Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) within the NAPPO countries. As regulations are developed to prevent the spread of these pests both within and outside of the NAPPO countries, it was important to understand the pest status of these species. This article reviews the basic biology, host range, distribution, potential to spread, management, and regulatory status of pest species of Rhagoletis within the NAPPO countries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207