MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290268000

Kålgallmygga, Contarinia nasturtii Kieffer : en växtskadegörare på kål

2005· other· en· W2290268000 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to examine what problems cabbage growers have with the
\nSwede Midge. The last few years the Swede Midge, Contarinia nasturtii, has become
\na larger problem for cabbage growers in several countries in Europe as well as in
\nSweden. In Canada the problems are so severe that the midge is classified as a
\nquarantine pest and therefore certain rules have to be followed. I have collected facts
\nof the biology, host plants and reproduction of the Swede Midge, as well as the
\ngrowers experiences and the occurrence of the midge in Canada, Europe and Sweden.
\nThe Swede Midge is hard to control because of its short life cycle and the larvae are
\nprotected between the heartleaves of the plant. When the larva feeds on the growth
\npoint the plant becomes distorted, in some cases several heads develop or none at all.
\nWhen the midge infests spring rape its flower buds become undeveloped and rosette
\nlike. By severe infestations in spring rape the fields can re-flower later during the
\nseason. In Sweden the midge has two to three generations per year. The larvae
\noverwinter in the soil for about 1-2 years.
\nI have counted midges caught in the pheromone traps, placed in fields of winter
\nwheat, spring rape and cabbage by Växtskyddscentralen, Alnarp, 2005, to get a
\npicture of the generations and reproduction of the Swede Midge. The results show that
\na large amount of midges overwinter in the spring rape fields and hatch the following
\nyear. Then the midges fly to new hostplants and start a new generation. If there are
\ncabbage fields nearby, the next generation of the Swede Midge can cause severe
\ndamage. An investigation was made in the 1970's in Skåne and Blekinge, which
\nshowed that the infestations were severe. Already then it was established that a large
\nincrease of the midge population in spring rape could lead to huge consequences for
\nthe cabbage grower. The pheromone traps in the cabbage fields show that if cabbage
\nis grown year after year or on a field nearby, the population is kept alive.
\nThe chemical control should be directed towards the adult midges. However, today
\nthere is no good method of actually knowing when the midge flies. The pheromon
\ntraps have made it possible to start the development of a monitoring system. Research
\nand trials are in progress to optimize the pesticide treatment to the flight peaks and to
\nprevent egg-laying. Still there are some preventive measures to be taken, such as crop
\nrotation, controlling weeds and field selection.
\nExcept developing a reliable monitoring system, further knowledge of the
\noverwintering of the larvae in the soil and of its natural enemies is needed. Together
\nwith the preventive measures it is possible to find new ways of controlling the Swede
\nMidge and hopefully to reduce the use of pesticides.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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