MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Refuges in reverse: the spread of <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> resistance to unselected greenhouse populations of cabbage loopers <i>Trichoplusia ni</i>

2008· article· en· W2108590962 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle T. Franklin, Judith H. Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrichoplusiaBiologyBacillus thuringiensisBiological dispersalCabbage looperResistance (ecology)GreenhousePEST analysisAgronomyPopulationHorticultureNoctuidaeBacteriaDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1 The dispersal of susceptible insects between refuges and Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) treated fields is the key to resistance management of Bt crops. Here we describe the opposite situation; the movement of Bt resistant Trichoplusia ni moths from over‐wintered, greenhouse populations in British Columbia (BC) exposed to high Bt use to neighbouring greenhouses where Bt sprays have not been used. 2 The spread of Bt resistance to non‐selected populations of T. ni , and the resulting increase in resistance, indicates a surprising level of dispersal of resistant moths among greenhouses even in the face of fitness costs. 3 Field populations of T. ni in BC are seasonal migrants from regions of California where Bt cotton is grown. In 2006, field populations surveyed along the migration path from California through Oregon were highly susceptible to Bt insecticides and, thus, showed no indication of selection for resistance among these source populations. 4 The arrival of the immigrant moths provides a potential source of susceptible individuals to dilute the levels of resistance in greenhouse populations in BC later in the summer, but this has not occurred. Thus, field populations in BC do not appear to serve as refuges to combat Bt resistance in greenhouse populations.

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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest EntomologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207