MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242146247 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26986

Field evaluation of the potential for avian exposure to clothianidin following the planting of clothianidin-treated corn seed

2018· preprint· en· W4242146247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean L. McGee, Melissa L. Whitfield Åslund, Daiana Duca, Nicole Kopysh, Tereza Dan, Loren D. Knopper, Larry W. Brewer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothianidinSowingForagingBiologySeed treatmentAgronomyAnimal scienceToxicologyGerminationPesticideEcologyThiamethoxam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This objective of this study was to quantify consumption of clothianidin-treated corn seed by birds following standard planting practices. Post-planting seed counts on 21 fields in southwestern Ontario, Canada, demonstrated that a small proportion of total sown treated seeds remained on the soil surface immediately post-planting (i.e. mean 0.3 ±0.2% of the total sown seeds). Behavior monitoring of individual birds and 24-hr remote video surveillance were deployed to investigate how much of the treated seed remaining on the soil surface was consumed by birds. Spotting scopes were used to monitor the full duration of the field visits of 596 individual birds during morning hours for three consecutive days after planting on each of the 21 fields. Only two birds were observed consuming treated seeds (one seed each) and three birds consumed seeds for which the treatment status could not be visually confirmed. Similarly, in > 1,380 hours of continuous video monitoring of field locations with the highest likelihood of avian exposure (where multiple treated seeds remained clustered on the soil surface), no birds were observed eating treated seed. This study provides field verification on two factors that determine exposure: 1) standard sowing practices in Ontario are effective at burying treated seeds such that the count of seeds on the soil surface after planting is low, and 2) foraging birds monitored on these fields consumed very few of the clothianidin-treated corn seeds remaining on the soil surface after planting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207