MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048699061 · doi:10.4000/vertigo.4096

Parasitoïdes et lutte biologique: paradigme ou panacée ?

2001· article· fr· W2048699061 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Guy Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueVertigO · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryBiologyMolecular biologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La lutte biologique utilise des organismes vivants pour diminuer les niveaux de population d'autres organismes, généralement nuisibles. Les ennemis naturels les plus souvent utilisés en lutte biologique comprennent les microorganismes, les nématodes, les prédateurs et les parasitoïdes. Ces derniers sont responsables de nombreux succès en lutte biologique et ils occupent dans les écosystèmes naturels une place importante. On considère que la mortalité causée par les parasitoïdes est plus importante en nature que celle attribuée aux prédateurs et aux microorganismes combinés. On retrouve des parasitoïdes dans six ordres d'insectes mais ce sont surtout les parasitoïdes hyménoptères, diptères et coléoptères qui ont été étudiés en lutte biologique. Malgré des qualités indéniables en lutte biologique (grande spécificité, innocuité pour l'homme, possibilités d'élevage de masse), l'utilisation de parasitoïdes en lutte biologique n'est pas sans problème. Les risques associés à la pollution génétique des populations naturelles et aux conditions d'élevages de masse doivent être pris en ligne de compte dans l'évaluation des coûts et bénéfices de la lutte biologique.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertigOSame topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207