MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165697928 · doi:10.7202/706205ar

Effects of water volume rates on spray deposition and control of tarnished plant bug [Hemiptera : Miridae] in strawberry crops

2005· article· en· W2165697928 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Panneton, A. Bélanger, C. Vincent, M. Piché, Mohamed Khelifi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiridaeTarnished plant bugLygusBiologyHorticultureFragariaHemipteraVolume (thermodynamics)AgronomyPopulationBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments were performed on the effect of three volumes of application on spray deposition and insecticidal efficacy against the tarnished plant bug (Lygus lineolaris) in two strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) cultivars, Kent and Chambly. The rate of application of malathion was kept constant at 4.5 kg a.i. ha-1 for volumes of application of 500 and 1500 L ha-1. Plant coverage was measured using a fluorescent tracer applied at volumes of application of 500, 1000 and 1500 L ha-1. The tracer was recovered from samples taken from different plant locations and on the ground. Tarnished plant bug populations were evaluated 24 hours before and after insecticidal treatment. When coverage data were normalized for a fixed active ingredient rate, an increase in the volume of application from 500 to 1500 L ha-1 frequently had no effect on the amount of tracer recovered at the various locations. On some occasions, an increase in volume of application resulted in a decrease in the amount of tracer recovered, i.e. leaves at the top and bottom of the canopy (Kent), sepals (Kent). Tarnished plant bug population control was commercially acceptable at 500 and 1500 L ha-1.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207