MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112987992 · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.5.1421

Effect of Adult Colorado Potato Beetle Density on Dispersal Under Field Conditions

2004· article· en· W2112987992 on OpenAlexafffund
P. D. Sandeson, Gilles Boiteau, Jean‐François Blanc

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsColorado potato beetleBiologyLeptinotarsaBiological dispersalPEST analysisPopulation densityHorticultureAgronomyBotanyAnimal sciencePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), released uniformly at densities of 2, 8, 16, and 32 beetles per plant, had an emigration rate independent of initial density per plant. The overwintered (postdiapause) and summer (prediapause) adult beetles emigrated at overall mean rates of 0.403 and 0.398 beetles over the first 4 h after release. The reduction in the mean percentage of released overwintered and summer beetles per plant over a period of 124 h after the initiation of the release followed an exponential decay model. Over that period, the emigration rate of overwintered populations changed faster than that of summer populations. The corresponding immigration rates into beetle-free areas (342.8 m2), which surrounded the RAs (37.4 m2) of the potato plots, were low. The overwintered and summer adult beetles immigrated at overall mean rates of 0.09 and 0.07 beetles over the first 4 h after release. A capture-mark-release-recapture test carried out using the eight beetles per plant density in 1998 showed that cross-contamination of the release plots was not a factor in the study.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EntomologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207