MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140208806 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n3p223

Spatial Distribution of Adults of Triozoida limbata Enderlein, 1918 (Hemiptera: Triozidae) in Guava Orchards

2015· article· en· W2140208806 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vera Alves de Sá, Marcos Gino Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionPoisson distributionSampling (signal processing)StatisticsBiologyOrchardMathematicsHorticultureForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to carry out probabilistic analyses of the spatial distribution patterns of adults of Triozoida limbata Enderlein, 1918 (Hemiptera: Triozidae) in guava orchards. This study was conducted in four guava orchards in Ivinhema, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. The samplings were conducted every fortnight from April 2012 to March 2014. A sampling area was set up for adult samples, and it consisted of 24 sampling units or plots with 15 plants in each (3 rows × 5 plants). A double-sided adhesive yellow trap was installed, 23 cm in length and 11 cm in width, around the central plant of each sampling unit, approximately 1.5 m from the ground. The dispersion rates (variance/mean ratio, Morisita index and Exponent k of the Negative Binomial Distribution) and the theoretical frequency distributions (Poisson and Negative Binomial) were calculated. Following the analyses, it can be concluded that the adults of T. limbata of the populations studied are randomly distributed in the four areas evaluated, with the sampling data fitting the Poisson distribution model.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.229
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207