MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096697209 · doi:10.4039/n04-013

Ecology and management of <i>Ericaphis fimbriata</i> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in relation to the potential for spread of <i>Blueberry scorch virus</i>

2004· article· en· W2096697209 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. A. Raworth

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlateAphidBiologyAphididaeHemipteraVacciniumBotanyHorticultureHomopteraPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aphids were sampled in commercial blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L. (Ericaceae), fields in southwestern British Columbia, Canada, from 2001 through 2003. Ericaphis fimbriata (Richards), the dominant aphid, overwintered as eggs on blueberry and emerged in late February and March during bud break. Apterous adult fundatrices were found during April. The fundatrices produced both alate and apterous virginoparae. There was a positive curvilinear relationship between production of alatae and aphid density on flower clusters, but not on leaf terminals. Peak densities in late June or early July varied from 300 to 9000 aphids per plant in different fields, suggesting that there may be considerable variation in Blueberry scorch virus transmission rates among fields infected with the virus. Production of alate virginoparae (percentage of all fourth-instar aphids with wing pads) declined from May through August. Sexual morphs were produced in late September and October. The efficacy of postbloom insecticide applications in June, by growers, was variable. Experimental trials showed that dormant oil is not effective in preventing aphid emergence. Aphids on blueberry should be controlled before bloom, before alatae are produced and large populations occur, but the efficacy of this approach in reducing virus transmission needs to be tested.

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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207