MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180831334 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr23.2ed.c7

Guidelines for Integrating Ecological Principles of Pest Management with Rotation Design

2006· book-chapter· en· W2180831334 on OpenAlexaff
Randy L. Anderson, K. L. Bailey, Frank B. Peairs

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCroppingAgroforestryIntegrated pest managementAgroecosystemEcologyCrop rotationBiologyArthropodCropAgronomyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explains ecological principles related to pest life cycles and management. It suggests guidelines for producers and scientists to integrate these principles with the design of crop rotations to limit pest problems. The chapter addresses management of arthropod pests in dryland agroecosystems from an ecological perspective. Insecticide and miticide treatments for arthropod infestations in dryland crops are relatively expensive and may have other undesirable effects such as mortality in natural enemy populations. Arthropod pests of dryland crops should be assessed for their potential to be affected by cropping system design. The utility of resistant varieties in dryland cropping systems is limited by the time required to develop effective varieties. Design of dryland agroecosystems should recognize the importance of conservation biological control and niche requirements of important natural enemy species. In the case of arthropod pests, the controlling organisms usually are predators, parasitoids, or pathogens.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.040

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy monograph/AgronomySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207