MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107119549 · doi:10.1603/ec10397

Swede Midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Ten Years of Invasion of Crucifer Crops in North America

2011· review· en· W2107119549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mao Chen, Anthony M. Shelton, Rebecca H. Hallett, Christine A. Hoepting, Julie R. Kikkert, Ping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCecidomyiidaeMidgeBiologyCanolaBrassicaPEST analysisAgronomyIntegrated pest managementRapeseedGallBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii Kieffer (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), a common insect pest in Europe, is a newly invasive pest in North America that constitutes a major threat to cruciferous vegetable and field crops. Since its first identification in Ontario, Canada, in 2000, it has rapidly spread to 65 counties in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and has recently been found in canola (one of two cultivars of rapeseed, Brassica napus L. and Brassica campestris L.) in the central Prairie region where the majority of Canada's 6.5 million ha (16 million acres) of canola is grown. The first detection of Swede midge in the United States was in 2004 in New York cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.), but it has now been found in four additional states. Here, we review the biology of Swede midge, its host plant range, distribution, economic impact, pest status, and management strategies. We provide insight into this insect's future potential to become an endemic pest of brassica crops in North America. We also proposed research needed to develop tactics for handling this invasive pest in brassica crops.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207