MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006153018 · doi:10.1002/ajae.12028

A Bayesian State‐Space Approach for Invasive Species Management: The Case of Spotted Wing Drosophila

2020· article· en· W3006153018 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveIntegrated pest managementPopulationBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityMarkov chain Monte CarloBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) is an invasive pest with devastating effects on soft‐skinned fruit crops. Due to its high economic impacts, current SWD management strategies usually focus on preventive calendar‐based insecticide sprays. The industry is calling for adoption of monitoring‐based integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to reduce unnecessary insecticide applications. However, because traps are costly and do not provide perfect observations of the population size, most growers do not monitor. We develop a Bayesian state‐space bioeconomic framework to inform the optimal SWD management strategy when observational uncertainty exists. We use Bayesian inference via the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to generate the posterior distribution of population model parameters, which we then use to simulate the economic performance of alternative SWD management strategies. We find that one of the monitoring‐based IPM strategies has a slightly lower total cost than the calendar‐based spray strategy. We also find evidence of misalignments between public and private incentives in the adoption of IPM strategies. Profit‐maximizing growers who ignore the negative externalities of insecticide spray have little incentive to adopt the IPM strategies. However, for environmentally conscious growers who take into account the external costs of insecticide sprays, IPM strategies are superior to calendar‐based spray strategy. Our results indicate that IPM strategies become more appealing to both types of growers as the trapping efficiency improves. Extension efforts, support for research to improve trapping efficiency, and monetary incentives can be used to encourage grower adoption of monitoring‐based IPM strategies to control SWD infestation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
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