The influence of Canadian research on semiochemical-based management of forest insect pests in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insects use semiochemicals to mediate important behaviours such as mating, oviposition, and foraging for resources. Chemical ecology research aims to identify these message-bearing chemicals and develop synthetic copies of semiochemicals for use in integrated pest management (IPM). There has been, and continues to be, an extensive research effort to understand the chemical ecology of various insects considered to be pests of forests in Canada. Canadian chemical ecology research has had an impact on IPM of forest insect pests in Canada and around the world. Canadian researchers have been involved in the identification of semiochemicals used by forest insects and the development and implementation of semiochemical-based management tactics for forest pest management. Semiochemicals have been incorporated into forest pest management for a variety of insect taxa primarily as tools to monitor and control forest insect pests in Canada. The goals of the current review are to: (1) highlight research conducted on semiochemical-based management of forest pests in Canada; (2) discuss the current and potential uses of semiochemicals in IPM of forest pests in Canada; and (3) evaluate potential areas for increased research and implementation of semiochemicals into the management of forest pests in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".