MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2650473518

Update on petroleum spray oil for citrus rust mite control

2001· article· en· W2650473518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. L. Knapp, H. N. Nigg, H. E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallon (US)AcrePetroleumRust (programming language)Environmental scienceToxicologyAgronomyWaste managementBiologyEngineeringAgroforestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of ExxonMobil, Helena Chemical Company, PetroCanada, and Sun Oil Company petroleum spray oils for control of citrus rust mite is reported. In an experiment with PetroCanada 455 oil, 20 gallons of oil plus 125 gallons of water per acre applied in April, July, and October did not produce leaf or fruit damage, but did control citrus rust mites for 8 months. One 10 or 15 gallons per acre application of Petro- Canada 455 oil compared favorably with Sun Oil Company 455 oil at the same rates. In general, higher rates of oil provided better and/or longer citrus rust mite control. Oil plus 125 gallons of water per acre provided better residual citrus rust mite control compared to the same oil and rate applied in 30 and 50 gallons of water per acre. A 2 gallon rate of Helena Chemical Company oil provided rust mite control for approximately 40 days in two trials. ExxonMobil 455 oil compared favorably with Sun Oil Company 455 oil at 10 gallons per acre with one application in July. Split applications in June and August of 7.5 gallons of ExxonMobil and Sun Oil Company 455 oils in 125 gallons of water per acre provided 111 days (late June-October) of citrus rust mite control. Overall, petroleum oils from ExxonMobil, Helena Chemical Company, PetroCanada, and Sun Oil Company performed well in these tests.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207