MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406753184 · doi:10.1093/jee/toae304

On-farm evaluation of swede midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) susceptibility among popular kale varieties

2025· article· en· W4406753184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victor M. Izzo, Scott A. Lewins, Maryam Nouri-Aiin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCecidomyiidaeMidgeBiologyIntegrated pest managementPEST analysisGallInfestationAgronomyAgricultureCropHorticultureBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii Kieffer (Diptera:Cecidomyiidae), is a gall-forming insect pest that targets cruciferous plants. Since its introduction to North America in the early 2000s, the midge has expanded its range to include farming regions in Quebec and the Northeastern USA. In this study, we evaluated the susceptibility of 4 popular kale varieties-Green Curly-(Vates), Red Russian, Red Curly (RedBor), and Lacinato/Tuscan-to swede midge infestation in on-farm trials conducted over consecutive years. Our results indicate substantial variability in susceptibility among varieties, with Red Russian kale consistently exhibiting the highest damage incidence across both years. These findings provide valuable insights for developing effective integrated pest management (IPM) strategies tailored to organic and small-scale vegetable farming contexts, emphasizing the role of crop genetic resources in pest mitigation and sustainable agriculture. In addition, this study highlights the potential of non-chemical approaches for managing swede midge, leading to a more diverse and adaptable IPM toolbox for growers.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207