MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170272979 · doi:10.1653/024.095.0443

Evaluation of Insecticide Chemistries Against the Leek Moth (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae), a New Pest in North America

2012· article· en· W2170272979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Olmstead, Anthony M. Shelton

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorida Entomologist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMethomylPEST analysisSpinosadLepidoptera genitaliaIntegrated pest managementToxicologyPest controlAlliumBacillus thuringiensisLarvaCyhalothrinHorticulturePesticideAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leek moth, Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller), is a newly introduced micro-lepidopteran pest in North America that attacks Allium crops, including onion, leek, and garlic. Eggs are laid on leaves and emerging larvae may cause extensive damage by mining leaves, feeding on leaf surfaces and feeding directly on bulbs. Little is known about existing natural enemies for this pest in North America, but classical biological control introductions are underway in Canada. However, other management options are needed because the threat to the onion production industry in New York State and the Great Lakes Region is imminent. Laboratory studies showed that lambda cyhalothrin (Warrior® II), spinetoram (Radiant® SC), methomyl (Lannate® LV), chlorantraniliprole (Coragen®), and spinosad (Entrust®) significantly increased larval mortality, compared to the control, at 2, 4, and 8 days after treatment, while Bacillus thuringiensis and azadirachtin insecticides did not. These results are explained in part by the behavior of the insect.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlorida EntomologistSame topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207