A mail survey of growers to estimate potato common scab prevalence and economic loss in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mail-out survey of Canadian potato growers was conducted in February 2003 to determine common scab prevalence and extent of economic loss resulting from scab for their 2002 yield. A survey of this type is feasible given that the disease is readily observed on the surface of the tubers. A questionnaire was sent to grower associations for distribution to a sample of their membership. All provinces except British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador participated. The overall response rate (24%) was comparable to other mail surveys sent to growers. Response bias may therefore influence estimates. The mean prevalence of scab was 82%, representing a mean economic loss of Can$7500–$8500 (95% confidence) per farm or Can$90–$102 per hectare. The resulting estimated total economic loss to scab was between Can$15.3 and $17.3 million. Scab was most prevalent in eastern Canada, with Quebec reporting the highest mean loss per hectare. Scab was least prevalent in western Canada, occurring at low severity if present. The distribution of common scab may be related to irrigation, years in production, and type of production, among other factors. The results of this survey will serve as a baseline measure to study disease trends when compared with future survey results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".