MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ecology and Management of the Soybean Aphid in North America

2010· review· en· W2132409583 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Ragsdale, Douglas A. Landis, Jacques Brodeur, George E. Heimpel, Nicolas Desneux

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoybean aphidAphidBiologyBiological pest controlPEST analysisContext (archaeology)AphisIntegrated pest managementEcologyAgroforestryPest controlAgronomyAphididaeHomopteraBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura, has become the single most important arthropod pest of soybeans in North America. Native to Asia, this invasive species was first discovered in North America in July 2000 and has rapidly spread throughout the northcentral United States, much of southeastern Canada, and the northeastern United States. In response, important elements of the ecology of the soybean aphid in North America have been elucidated, with economic thresholds, sampling plans, and chemical control recommendations widely adopted. Aphid-resistant soybean varieties were available to growers in 2010. The preexisting community of aphid natural enemies has been highly effective in suppressing aphid populations in many situations, and classical biological control efforts have focused on the addition of parasitoids of Asian origin. The keys to sustainable management of this pest include understanding linkages between the soybean aphid and other introduced and native species in a landscape context along with continued development of aphid-resistant varieties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations542
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207