MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: The Agronomic and Ecological Rationale for Its Use

2001· article· en· W2108728941 on OpenAlexaff
Eldon E. Ortman, Lawrent L. Buschman, D. D. Calvin, Janet Carpenter, Galen P. Dively, John E. Foster, B. W. Fuller, Richard L. Hellmich, R. A. Higgins, Thomas E. Hunt, Gary P. Munkvold, K. R. Ostlie, Marlin E. Rice, R. T. Roush, M. K. Sears, Anthony M. Shelton, Blair D. Siegfried, P. E. Sloderbeck, Kevin L. Steffey, F. Tom Turpin, John Wedberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetically modified maizeAgronomyGenetically modified cropsBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyTransgene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We agree with Obrycki et al. (2001) that a broad-based ecological approach for new pest management technologies is desirable, but we unanimously and strongly disagree with some of their assumptions and conclusions about Bt corn. Bt corn is corn that has been genetically engineered to produce insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Because Bt corn is important for effective and ecologically sound management of lepidopteran pests of corn, we provide here relevant data, some of which is new, to help clarify the issues raised by Obrycki et al. (2001). Obrycki et al. (2001), citing Barry and Darrah (1991), claim that traditional plant breeding has developed corn plants that adequately protect against European corn borer. However, Barry and Darrah (1991) reported only “some resistance to whorl leaf feeding…·[or] some resistance to sheath and sheath collar feeding,” which is not comparable with the nearly complete protection provided by Bt corn. Carpenter and Gianessi (2001) estimated that, nationally, during “10 of the 13 years between 1986 and 1998, European corn borer infestations…·were such that corn growers would have realized a gain from planting Bt corn.” Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2000) estimated a net benefit to growers of $$8.18 per hectare on 8 million hectares of Bt corn planted in 1999, or a national benefit of $65.4 million (USEPA 2000). Even considering the inherent year-to-year variability in pest population density, the EPA estimated the annual benefit to corn growers at $38–$219 million (USEPA 2001).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207