MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138411057 · doi:10.7202/706178ar

Managing apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella [Diptera : Tephritidae], by perimeter trapping

2005· article· en· W2138411057 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhagoletisTrappingTephritidaeBiologyHorticultureMalusMaggotPEST analysisBotanyApple treeBlowing a raspberryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perimeter trapping is an effective physical method to control apple maggot ( Rhagoletis pomonella ) in apple ( Malus pumila ) orchards. It provided 99.5 to 100 % clean fruit at harvest in commercial orchards. The traps were red spheres (9 cm diam) or yellow boards (28 cm x 21.5 cm) sandwiched between the two halves of red spheres. They were coated with a sticky material and baited with butyl hexanoate. The number of traps per plot was a function of the length of the plot facing a possible entry site of R. pomonella . In plots adjacent to forest, traps were placed at ca. 10 m intervals on the row, or on the outer most tree of every row. Sides of plots adjacent to prairie grass or a chemically-treated plot had traps at approximately 20-m intervals. To achieve commercially acceptable apple maggot control, the activity of the pest should be low to moderate. Susceptiblity to apple maggot attack varied from one apple cultivar to another. Therefore, this criterion should be considered when perimeter trapping of apple maggot is envisaged.

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.

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 score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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