MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236919797 · doi:10.1093/jee/99.1.76

Control Decision Rule for European Chafer (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Larvae in Field Corn

2006· article· en· W4236919797 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin M. Renkema, J. P. Nyrop, Christina DiFonzo, M. K. Sears, A. W. Schaafsma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgricultural Adaptation CouncilOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsScarabaeidaeBiologyLarvaTransectSampling (signal processing)InstarAgronomyPopulation densityNegative binomial distributionField cornStatisticsAnimal scienceEcologyZea maysMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After greenhouse and outdoor microplot experiments, a critical density of two third instars per microplot for third instars of European chafer, Rhizotrogus (Amphimallon) majalis (Razoumowsky), in corn, Zea mays L., was derived. On average, the number of missing or damaged plants increased ≈8% from zero to two larvae per 900 cm2. Furthermore, 23 fields in 2 yr were sampled for larvae along transects by using a golf cup cutter as the sampling tool and the critical density of 0.2 larva per sampling unit as the critical density. The sampling unit was one golf cup cutter with a diameter of 10.8 cm or 91.4 cm2 (10 sampling units ≈ 900 cm2 ≈ 1 foot2). Fieldwide means and variation were modeled to Taylor’s power law, a = 1.42 and b = 1.47, and 20 of 23 fields fit the negative binomial probability distribution. Wald’s formula for a sequential sampling plan was most accurate and least time-consuming, according to the operating characteristic and the average sample number function, relative to Iwao's and converging lines formulae. Percentage of sand, topography, soil bulk density, and proximity to trees were measured as potential predictors of areas with high larval density. Percentage of sand and soil bulk density were significant predictors, and topography and proximity to trees were not significant predictors. Field areas where the percentage of sand is high and the soil bulk density is low to moderate or where the percentage of sand is moderate and the soil bulk density is low should be chosen as sampling locations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207