MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197991155 · doi:10.3390/insects12090769

A New Look at Cultivar Preference in Hoplocampa testudinea (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) on Apple in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia, Canada

2021· article· en· W3197991155 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Suzanne Blatt, Kim Hiltz

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologySawflyCultivarTenthredinidaeNova scotiaHymenopteraLarvaHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: The European apple sawfly, Hoplocampa testudinea Klug (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), can be an economically important pest in eastern Canada and shows preference for apple cultivars in Nova Scotia, Canada. We hypothesized that this preference could be due to oviposition by female H. testudinea (preference-performance hypothesis) during the bloom period or differential larval survival during development due to fruitlet physicochemical properties. (2) Methods: Fifteen commercial and experimental apple (Malusdomestica Borkh.; Rosaceae) cultivars located at the Kentville Research and Development Centre (Kentville, Nova Scotia) were chosen and examined for H. testudinea oviposition, larval performance during fruitlet development, fruitlet physicochemical properties and damage assessment at harvest from 2016–2019, inclusive. (3) Results: H. testudinea showed significant cultivar preference during oviposition, during development and at harvest, but the ranking of these cultivars was not the same throughout the season. Total impact by H. testudinea was consistent for most cultivars over multiple years of the study. (4) Conclusion: Correlation of oviposition with damage provided weak evidence for the preference-performance hypothesis. We propose that this relationship is weak due to differential survival of larvae during development.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207