MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119249312 · doi:10.7202/706204ar

The effect of Bt-transgenic potatoes on the movement of the Colorado potato beetle [Coleoptera : Chrysomelidae]

2005· article· en· W2119249312 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Yvan Pelletier, Catherine Clark, Gilles Boiteau, Jennifer Feldman-Riebe

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorado potato beetleLeptinotarsaBiologyBiological dispersalBacillus thuringiensisPopulationCropAgronomyHorticulturePEST analysisDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-year field study conducted at the Potato Research Centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick, demonstrated a quantifiable residency time for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) susceptible adult Colorado potato beetles ( Leptinotarsa decemlineata ) in a Bt-transgenic potato field. Fifty percent of Bt-susceptible beetles released in a transgenic Russet Burbank (NewLeaf TM ) potato plot were recaptured 4 to 7 days after release compared to 7 to 11 days for beetles released in a non-transgenic control plot. Beetles survived for long periods of time (up to 31 days) on transgenic potatoes in spite of the crop's toxicity. A significant number of beetles dispersed from transgenic plots. Twenty-five and 30% of the beetles released in the Bt-transgenic plot were recaptured in border rows or trench traps outside the plot indicating a high level of dispersal activity. The long residency time and the high level of dispersal activity could increase the chances of development of a Bt-resistant beetle population. These findings are important to the development of a deployment strategy that will reduce the risk of build-up of Bt resistance in the beetle population.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207