MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045466579 · doi:10.1303/aez.2005.667

Susceptibility of five species of thrips to different strains of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana

2005· article· en· W2045466579 on OpenAlexaff
Makoto Abe, Takafumi Ikegami

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Entomology and Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest Control
Canadian institutionsPlant Biotechnology Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeauveria bassianaBiologyThripsConidiumEntomopathogenic fungusBassianaFungusInoculationWestern flower thripsBiological pest controlPathogenicityBeauveriaBotanyMicrobiologyHorticultureThripidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The susceptibilities of five thrips species, Frankliniella intonsa, F. occidentalis, Thrips coloratus, T. hawaiiensis, and T. tabaci, to three isolates of an entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana (isolates AZA38, GOM03, and KOG02), were investigated under laboratory conditions. Among the three fungal isolates, the five thrips species were the most susceptible to isolate KOG02 when inoculated with conidial suspensions at a concentration of 1×107 conidia/ml. Females of F. intonsa were more susceptible to the fungi than males, while males of F. occidentalis and T. coloratus were more susceptible than females. Both males and females of T. hawaiiensis were highly susceptible to isolate KOG02. T. tabaci was highly susceptible to isolate KOG02, even by inoculation of the conidial suspension at a concentration of 1×106 conidia/ml. Although isolates AZA38 and GOM03 exhibited weaker pathogenicity to the five thrips species than did isolate KOG02, the gross mortality increased significantly with the inoculation of these two isolates as compared with the control.

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 score0.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Entomology and ZoologySame topicEntomopathogenic Microorganisms in Pest ControlFrench-language works237,207