What’s bugging you? A survey of producer perspectives on entomology extension in agriculture in Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent changes to entomological agricultural extension in Alberta, Canada provide opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and identify avenues for growth and collaboration among stakeholders. Extension professionals need to understand producer priorities, the effectiveness of extension efforts, and the best modes of communication for efficient information exchange. In this study, we develop, implement, and analyze a scientific survey to understand the priorities, needs, and preferences for entomological and pest management information of agricultural producers in Alberta, Canada. The cost and the loss of chemical control options were identified as the most critical pest management issues facing producers, while extension issues were viewed as less important. In addition to the expected pest control priorities, the survey revealed that producers value and promote the conservation of beneficial insects. Producers trust both traditional and digital communication methods, but the use and trust of resources are not always aligned. Survey results provide insights into potential opportunities to improve extension in Alberta by addressing key pest and extension issues.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it