MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Host Plant Susceptibility to the Swede Midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)

2007· article· en· W2174520715 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca H. Hallett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsCecidomyiidaeMidgeBiologyBrassicaCultivarBotanyHorticultureAgronomyGall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative resistance and susceptibility of various cruciferous plants to swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii (Kieffer) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), damage was investigated to provide growers with planting recommendations and to identify potential sources of resistance to the swede midge. Broccoli cultivars experienced more severe damage than cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts. The broccoli 'Paragon', 'Eureka', and 'Packman' are highly susceptible to the swede midge, whereas 'Triathlon' and 'Regal' showed reduced susceptibility to damage and slower development of damage symptoms. No differences were found between normal and red cultivars of cabbage and cauliflower in damage severity and progression of damage symptoms. Four new plant species (Brassica juncea Integlifolia group, Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O. E. Shulz., Lepidium campestre (L.) R.Br., and Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.) are reported as hosts of the swede midge. The weed species Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb, Camelina microcarpa Andrz. ex Dc., and Erysimum cheiranthoides L. exhibited no damage symptoms, and they seem to be nonhost crucifers for the swede midge.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207