MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082187042 · doi:10.7202/706076ar

Resistant pests : A producer’s perspective

2005· article· en· W2082187042 on OpenAlexaffvenue
G. McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessFood securityGovernment (linguistics)Integrated pest managementPopulationResource (disambiguation)Environmental planningFood processingNatural resource economicsAgricultureEcologyEconomicsGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world population continues to grow rapidly while also demanding a safe, secure food supply. This supply is produced on a limited soil and water base which needs to be protected today and for future generations. By adapting to the control methods that are being used, current and new pests are changing and thriving under the conditions we provide while we produce food. A resource efficient and sustainable food production chain requires that producers of crops and livestock have a selection of safe, effective tools to manage pests to acceptable levels, and to minimize their ability to adapt. At present, the problem exists that those with responsibility for pest management like government policy makers, government regulators, the pest control industry, research and expert committees, food producers and consumers, lack a long-term strategic plan on how to manage pests safely and effectively. Such a strategic plan would clearly identify effective pest management as a major key, one that would give food producers the means of providing for food security while maintaining soil quality and wildlife habitat. Because of the speed at which pest resistance or adaptation is occurring, the process of developing the long-term strategy must be put in place quickly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207