MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147510338 · doi:10.1603/ipm13002

An Integrated Pest Management Adoption Survey of Sweet Corn Growers in the Great Lakes Region

2014· article· en· W2147510338 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrated Pest Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio State University
KeywordsIntegrated pest managementDemographicsAgricultural sciencePEST analysisCropPostharvestGeographyEarly adopterCrop managementAgroforestryBusinessAgronomyMarketingBiologyForestryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sweet corn is one of the most common fresh market vegetable crops grown throughout the north central and north east regions of the United States. In 2008, the Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group measured integrated pest management (IPM) practice adoption by growers of this crop using online and hardcopy surveys over a 10-mo period. The survey asked growers from nine states and Ontario, Canada, which pest management practices they used on their farm operation in the following sections: education, preplant, at-plant, in-season, postharvest, scouting, and demographics. Each individual survey question was ranked by a panel of university specialists and designated as a low, moderate, or high IPM valued activity, with points assigned accordingly. On survey completion, the total points accumulated by the grower would place them into one of three categories; low, moderate, or high IPM adopter. Of the 407 respondents, 130 were placed in the low IPM adoption category, 251 were deemed moderate IPM adopters, and 26 were placed in the high IPM category. Some key general attributes of a high IPM adopter include someone who has grown vegetables for at least 10 yr and has a farm >51 acres (67%) and raises between 21-50 acres of sweet corn (44%). Some key general attributes of a low IPM adopter include less experience on smaller acreage, with 56% having grown vegetables for fewer than 10 yr with 57% on farms smaller than five acres.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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