MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cabbage Seedpod Weevil ( <i>Ceutorhynchus obstrictus</i> ) Management in Canola ( <i>Brassica napus</i> ) across western Canada

2024· article· en· W4402273942 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kian Merkosky, Amy Leibovitz, Sydney Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Cases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaWeevilBrassicaBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The cabbage seedpod weevil (CSW), Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is a significant pest of canola ( Brassica napus L.) and other brassicaceous crops in western Canada, causing considerable yield losses if not effectively managed. It is primarily a pest of the southern prairies in western Canada, where damage can vary from 5 to 30% yield loss depending on region and year. CSW is a univoltine insect that overwinters in the adult stage. Adults are attracted to flowering fields each spring, where they mate, and females lay eggs in developing canola pods. Early flowering fields are most susceptible to damage and should be given priority in initial monitoring and management. Although adults can cause limited damage, larvae feeding on seeds in developing pods cause most of the damage. Insecticides are most often used for management, with no currently active biological control programs, though different options are being explored, and various cultural control strategies may prove effective in western Canada. This case study will review the current monitoring and management strategies for CSW in western Canada and suggest future areas of research. Information © The Authors 2024

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Health CasesSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207