MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297120476 · doi:10.21273/horttech05063-22

Farm-level Losses and Grower Willingness to Try Management Strategies for Swede Midge in Vegetable Crops

2022· article· en· W4297120476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elisabeth A. Hodgdon, Andrea E.M. Campbell, David Conner, Christine A. Hoepting, Andrew K. Galimberti, Yolanda H. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHortTechnology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMidgeIntegrated pest managementAgricultural scienceBiopesticidePEST analysisAgronomyBiologyAgroforestryPesticideLarvaEcologyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its introduction to North America in the 1990s, the invasive swede midge ( Contarinia nasturtii ) has become an important pest of cruciferous (Brassicaceae) vegetables in the northeast and Great Lakes regions of the United States and the Canadian provinces of Québec and Ontario. Swede midge reduces yield in cruciferous vegetables through larval feeding that distorts growth. Overlapping generations, cryptic larval feeding, and lack of effective biopesticides pose challenges for managing swede midge effectively using current tools. In 2018, we distributed an online survey for commercial vegetable growers in the United States and Canada to measure farm-level economic impacts of swede midge and grower perspectives on new management strategies for this pest. Growers reported losing $3808 US ($4890 Canadian) on average per acre per year due to swede midge–related vegetable crop losses. Both organic and conventional growers expressed an interest in paying more for nonchemical swede midge management vs. insecticides and were interested in trying new management strategies, particularly biological control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortTechnologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207