MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088570428 · doi:10.7202/705993ar

Comparison of three management schemes for Colorado potato beetle on early-season potatoes in Prince Edward Island

2005· article· en· W2088570428 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeff Stewart, Andrew P. Dornan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorado potato beetleLeptinotarsaBiologyInstarHorticultureLarvaAgronomyToxicologyPEST analysisBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economics of managing the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata ( Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae ) on potatoes ( Solarium tuberosum ) with different strategies was tested at four sites on Prince-Edward-Island in 1989. Three treatments were tested at each site: 1) an untreated check, 2) an application of Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis or rotenone after a threshold of 0.5 Colorado Potato Beetle Equivalents (CPBE) per stalk was reached ( 1 CPBE = 1 spring adult, 8 first- or second- instar larvae, 3 third- or fourth- instar larvae, or 1.6 summer adults), and 3) applications of insecticide according to the grower's normal spray schedule. At one site, tuber yield of plots managed with the 0.5 CPBE-per-stalk threshold was similar to that of plots where the grower maintained his normal spray schedule, but three fewer applications of insecticides were needed in the former. At the remaining sites, where the density of Colorado potato beetles did not exceed the threshold, tuber yield was similar to that of the grower's plots. This suggests that there were needless applications of insecticides by the growers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207