Book Review: Lamp W. O., Berberet R. C., Higley L. G., Baird C. R. (Eds.). 2007. Handbook of Forage and Rangeland Insects. Entomological Society of America, Lanham and the American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, U. S. A. 180 pp. ISBN 0-9776209-0-5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This handbook co-authored by 43 specialists from the USA and Canada is a highly successive, authoritative and practical reference guide to injurious and beneficial arthropods occurring on forage and rangeland crops.Distinguishing the insects from these two ecological groups is basically important for the management of crop pests.As indicated in the introductory section "How to Use this Handbook" (p. 1) its primary goal is to help producers, consultants, researchers and academic teachers, and students to identify the arthropods and to outline methods for the protection and augmentation of beneficial arthropods and to control harmful ones. Review of the book Lamp W.O. -continued from the page 146Extensive "Literature" (186 references), good "Glossary" (p.170-172), and a list of "Sources of Local Information" (70 addresses) make this handbook an excellent source of information on rangeland crops.Therefore, I strongly recommend this book to the attention of plant protection specialists and librarians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".