MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

M<scp>ANAGEMENT OF</scp> A<scp>GRICULTURAL</scp> I<scp>NSECTS WITH</scp> P<scp>HYSICAL</scp> C<scp>ONTROL</scp> M<scp>ETHODS</scp>

2002· review· en· W2098191242 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Vincent, Guy J. Hallman, B. Panneton, Francis Fleurât-Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreharvestPostharvestPest controlNanotechnologyComputer scienceBiologyMaterials scienceEcologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ideally, integrated pest management should rely on an array of tactics. In reality, the main technologies in use are synthetic pesticides. Because of well-documented problems with reliance on synthetic pesticides, viable alternatives are sorely needed. Physical controls can be classified as passive (e.g., trenches, fences, organic mulch, particle films, inert dusts, and oils), active (e.g., mechanical, polishing, pneumatic, impact, and thermal), and miscellaneous (e.g., cold storage, heated air, flaming, hot-water immersion). Some physical methods such as oils have been used successfully for preharvest treatments for decades. Another recently developed method for preharvest situations is particle films. As we move from production to the consumer, legal constraints restrict the number of options available. Consequently, several physical control methods are used in postharvest situations. Two noteworthy examples are the entoleter, an impacting machine used to crush all insect stages in flour, and hot-water immersion of mangoes, used to kill tephritid fruit fly immatures in fruit. The future of physical control methods will be influenced by sociolegal issues and by new developments in basic and applied research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.028

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 head0.300
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations194
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of EntomologySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207