MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579753881

Insecticides and Varietal Resistance in the Control of the Squash Vine Borer, Melittia Cucurbitae (Harr.), in Southwestern Ontario1

2016· article· en· W2579753881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren A. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of agricultural science/Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquashDieldrinCucurbita pepoBiologyHorticultureToxicologyBotanyPesticideAgronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In experiments on Golden Hubbard squash in 1952 and 1954, dusts of 2½ per cent aldrin, 1 and 2½ per cent dieldrin, 3 per cent methoxychlor, and 3 per cent aerosol-grade DDT each gave excellent control of the squash vine borer. A 1 per cent rotenone dust was moderately effective. Three applications, the first during the last week of June and the two others at 7- to 10-day intervals, were adequate The dusts should be directed to the bases of the stems, where 85 per cent of the eggs are laid The insecticides were not phytotoxic under conditions of the experiment Butternut pumpkin, Honey Cream watermelon, Iroquois muskmelon, Zucca melon, and red-seeded citron and National Pickling and Straight 8 cucumbers were immune to borer attack The following cucurbit varieties were susceptible in varying degrees: Delicata, Table Queen, Royal Acorn, Connecticut Field, and Small Sugar pumpkins, Vegetable Marrow (bush and trailing) summer squash; Mammoth Chili, Golden Delicious, Green Delicious, Blue Hubbard, Warted Hubbard...

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of agricultural science/Canadian Journal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207