EXPOSING LARVAE OF THE SPRUCE BUDWORM (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) TO SUBLETHAL DOSES OF <i>BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS</i> SUBSP. <i>KURSTAKI</i> DOES NOT AFFECT SURVIVAL DURING THE PUPAL STAGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A process-oriented model was recently developed to simulate the efficacy of spray products containing Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner subsp. kurstaki (Bacillaceae) against the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana Clemens (Cooke and Régnière 1996). The model accurately predicted foliage protection and larval population reduction during validation spray trials (Régnière and Cooke 1998; Cooke and Régnière 1999). The impact of treatment on budworm generation survival was generally well mimicked by the model except for a consistent overestimation of survival at the end of immature development in the treated plots. Régnière and Cooke (1998) speculated that residual mortality due to treatment may be occurring during the pupal stage. Carry-over of B. thuringiensis from larvae to pupae has been documented for spruce budworm (Klein and Lewis 1966) and several other Lepidoptera (Legner and Oatman 1962; Angus 1965). Although we recently investigated the response of spruce budworm larvae to ingestion of sublethal doses of B. thuringiensis (Pedersen et al. 1997), effects on pupal survival or adult emergence were not examined. In this note, we report the results of an experiment designed to assess such effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".