MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944815406 · doi:10.1111/imb.12601

Tracing insect pests: is there new potential in molecular techniques?

2019· review· en· W2944815406 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInsect Molecular Biology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInsectTraceabilityTracingBiotechnologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insects are amongst the greatest pests of agriculture, horticulture and forestry worldwide, inflicting damage and economic costs both directly and by transmitting plant viruses. Many kinds of insects are now resistant or cross-resistant to pesticides. Tracking studies have become very important for combatting insect pests and for better understanding their biology (eg insect population dynamics, movements, feeding behaviour and other ecological interactions). A wide variety of tracing approaches have been used including discriminative, tracer and molecular methods. The perfect technique for insect tracking is the technique that harmonizes with insects' 'normal' biology. Furthermore, the technique should be environmentally safe, cost-effective and easy to use. This paper reviews the current techniques used for insect traceability, documents the advantages and drawbacks of each method, and puts special focus on molecular techniques, including PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis as a new and promising traceability tool that could provide insects with a unique biological barcode and thus make it possible to trace their movements.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · 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