MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180208855 · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.2.405

Trap Captures of Male <I>Grapholita libertina</I> (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Moths: Relationship to Larval Numbers and Damage in Wild Lingonberry<SUP>1</SUP>

2004· article· en· W2180208855 on OpenAlexafffundabout
N. Kirk Hillier, Peggy L. Dixon, David J. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Utah
KeywordsTortricidaeBiologyCropLepidoptera genitaliaEcologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lingonberry fruitworm, Grapholita libertina Heinrich, is a tortricid moth whose larvae infest wild lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. variety minus Lodd) fields in Newfoundland, Canada. This study investigated the potential for predicting G. libertina larval damage by using adult pheromone trap captures. Spatial patterns of capture were studied in relation to subsequent larval and damaged berry distributions in four wild lingonberry fields during 1998, 1999 and 2000. A model was tested that incorporated the effects of resource availability and coincident plant composition on insect distribution. In 1998 and 2000, the mean adult capture/trap correlated well with larval (R2 = 0.38–0.63) and damaged berry (R2 = 0.41–0.59) density within grids at each site. In 1999, larval and damaged berry densities were not significantly correlated to adult distributions, and were more dependant on a limited host berry distribution (R2 = 0.54 and 0.47, respectively). The results of this study suggest that correlation between adult trapping of G. libertina and subsequent larval distributions is dependant on a minimal host berry population. Other factors that may contribute variability are also discussed.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207