MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of protein‐rich pea flour for the control of stored‐product beetles

2003· article· en· W2153034201 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsSitophilusBiologyCurculionidaeOryzaephilus surinamensisRed flour beetlePEST analysisAgronomyPopulationInsectRice weevilBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Protein‐rich pea flour is toxic to many stored‐product insects. We investigated several factors that may affect the efficacy of protein‐rich pea flour: insect species, insect population densities, grain species, temperature, and moisture. Adult Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) was more susceptible to protein‐rich pea flour than Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae). Protein‐rich pea flour did not increase the mortality of adult Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). However, it reduced the number of offspring of all three species. The toxicity of protein‐rich pea flour was not reduced after 9 months when stored at −15 °C, or at room temperature as flour or mixed with grain. Its toxicity in wheat increased with higher temperature and at lower grain moisture contents. Protein‐rich pea flour was more toxic in wheat and barley than in maize. This difference among grain species was not due to the kernel size of the grain, as ground wheat or maize with the same particle size still had different LD 50 s.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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