MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376170963

RAVAGIILE CAUZATE DE OMIDA PĂROASĂ A DUDULUI (HYPHANTRIA CUNEA) ÎN MOLDOVA ŞI COMBATEREA CU PREPARATUL ECOLOGIC PUR VIRIN–ABB-3

2010· article· ro· W4376170963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
USM ADMIN

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagero
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyphantriaBiologyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

În ţara noastră, de altfel ca şi în Europa, există numeroase specii de insecte care s-au aclimatizat aici, s-au răspândit rapid ocupând progresiv suprafeţe tot mai mari, iar activitatea lor influenţează cel mai adesea negativ ecosistemele în care trăiesc. Cel mai mare număr de specii invazive este reprezentat de insecte, unul dintre ele – veteran al invaziei – este Omida păroasă a dudului sau fluturele alb american (Hyphantria cunea), (Lepidoptera: Arctidae) – un dăunător periculos de carantină. H.cunea a fost inclusă de Organizaţia Uniunii Europene a Protecţiei Plantelor (EPPO) în lista dăunătorilor de carantină în 1997 [1], modificată în 1999 [2]. Patria dăunătorului este America de Nord (Canada, Mexic, SUA). Arealul de răspândire în America de Nord: de la Vest la Est – de la Oceanul Atlantic până la Oceanul Pacific şi de la Nord la Sud – începând cu hotarul pădurilor conifere din Canada, intersectând meridianul 54º şi 58º până la regiunile nordice ale Mexicului [3, 4]. Pe continentul european Hyphantria cunea pentru prima dată a fost evidenţiată în Ungaria în 1940, după care cu paşi rapizi s-a răspândit în ultimul deceniu în ţările vecine şi în Asia (Tab.1).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.410 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites researchFrench-language works237,207