MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183044736

Disinfestation of Hessian fly puparia in small rectangular hay bales using a laboratory heat treatment unit

2002· article· en· W2183044736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Opoku, Shahab Sokhansanj, W. J. Crerar, Lope G. Tabil, J. W. Whistlecraft

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Biosystems Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHayQuarantineForagePhytosanitary certificationToxicologyHorticultureRelative humidityBiologyMathematicsAnimal scienceAgronomyEnvironmental scienceEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C) was circulated through three control mesh bags containing infested wheat seedlings. An estimated number of 1220 puparia were used for each disinfestation test and the control. The density of the bales ranged from 113 to 148 kg/m 3 , and the initial moisture content ranged from 8.5 to 9.9% wet basis. The average temperatures used in the heat treatment ranged from 73 to 76 o C, and the average relative humidity ranged from 39 to 53%. The thermally treated insect bags and the controls were sent for emergence test. About 241 insects survived out of the approximate number of 1220 puparia used as control. This represented a pre-treatment viability of about 20%, which was unexpectedly low. The thermal treatment ensured a total mortality of the Hessian fly puparia. This study has shown that thermal treatment could be used to disinfest hay bales to meet quarantine and phytosanitary regulations. Keywords: Hessian fly, disinfestation, baled hay, forage, thermal treatment, quarantine,

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Biosystems EngineeringSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207