Evaluation de la technique d’exclusion par filets pour gérer les ravageurs en pomiculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les insectes ravageurs sont de plus en plus resistants aux matieres actives appliquees. Les filets d’exclusion constituent une alternative aux insecticides pour lutter contre les ravageurs. Deux systemes de lutte par filets d’exclusion ont ete evalues contre des ravageurs pomicoles a Victoriaville (Quebec, Canada). D’autres parametres tels que le climat sous le filet et l’incidence de la tavelure (Venturia inaequalis) ont ete egalement mesures. Les resultats ont ete positifs contre les deux principaux ravageurs de la pomme presents dans les vergers quebecois: la tordeuse a bandes obliques (Choristoneura rosaceana) et la punaise terne (Lygus lineolaris). Les systemes mono-rang et mono-parcelle ont reduit les degâts de C. rosaceana et L. lineolaris respectivement de 8,2 a 2,8 et 4,4 % et de 14,3 a 7,3 et 5,4 %. Les filets ont malheureusement profite a d’autres ravageurs secondaires dont certains pucerons, un probleme recurrent dans la lutte par exclusion. Les filets d’exclusion semblent prometteurs dans la lutte contre plusieurs ravageurs en pomiculture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".