MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407670479 · doi:10.4039/tce.2016.16

Apple cultivar preferences by<i>Hoplocampa testudinea</i>(Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia, Canada

2016· article· en· W2407670479 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christopher Burgart, N. Kirk Hillier, Suzanne Blatt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAcadia University
FundersAcadia University
KeywordsSawflyTenthredinidaeBiologyCultivarMalusPEST analysisHymenopteraIntegrated pest managementInfestationHorticultureLarvaBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The European apple sawfly,Hoplocampa testudinea(Klug) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), is an economically important pest in eastern Canada. Growers can experience significant crop losses as management of this species is difficult because it is present during bloom. As a result, management strategies other than pesticides are required for this pest. Eleven commercial and experimental apple (Malus pumilaMiller; Rosaceae) cultivars were studied to evaluate host resistance as a potential management strategy. Preferences were determined using field surveys of adult visitation, larval infestation of apples, damage at harvest, behavioural bioassays, and electrophysiological tests. Significant differences in visitation and infestation were observed.H. testudineapreferred “Zestar!”, “s23-06-153”, and “Pinova” over other cultivars examined. Comparison with subsequent larval counts and damage also suggest differential performance of larvae in several cases, irrespective of the adult preference. Y-tube bioassays and electroanntennography results indicate that olfaction plays a role in cultivar discrimination for this species.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207