MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416947636 · doi:10.2478/contagri-2025-0025

Integrated Crop Pest Management Practices: A Classification Based on a Rapid Review of International and Canadian Literature

2025· article· en· W4416947636 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aliou Diagne, Marie-Ève Gaboury-Bonhomme, Jean‐François Bissonnette, Gratias Gloria Denise M. Godonou

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Agriculture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsCentre de Géomatique du QuébecAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesUniversité Laval
KeywordsIntegrated pest managementAgricultureAgrochemicalGovernment (linguistics)Crop protectionPest controlSustainabilityPesticideSustainable agriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crops are vulnerable to weeds, fungi, insects, nematodes, rodents and diseases. To address these threats rapidly, farmers tend to adopt a curative approach based on the use of synthetic pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, insecticides) rather than a preventive approach without pesticides. This reliance on pesticides poses risks to human health, the environment, and wildlife, including pollinators such as bees and bats. Reducing pesticide use has thus become an important societal and political objective worldwide. In Canada, the Government of Quebec’s Sustainable Agriculture Plan (PAD) 2020–2030 promotes, as its first objective, the adoption of alternative practices aimed at reducing pesticide sales by 500,000 kilograms by 2030 and decreasing health and environmental risks by 40%. This article takes stock of alternative practices of synthetic pesticides use in the literature in Canada and internationally from the perspective of Integrated Crop Pest Management (ICPM) stages and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food of Quebec (MAFFQ) typology 1 , to see which ones could possibly be used in Quebec. To do this, we used the “Rapid Review” method of the literature based on the exploitation of 71 scientific references. The findings indicate that countries with agroeconomic conditions comparable to those of Canada are adopting alternative and good agricultural practices, as well as physical, mechanical, biological, and biotechnical control methods; however, pesticide use often persists alongside these approaches. While practices belonging to the prevention and intervention stages through physical, mechanical, biological, and chemical control appear to be highly adopted by producers, practices belonging to the pest knowledge, monitoring, evaluation, and feedback stages appear to be poorly adopted by producers. The authors recommend improving access to information on crop pests and ICPM practices, along with enhancing farmers’ awareness of the economic, health, and environmental risks associated with pesticide use. Future research should focus on classifying and analyzing ICPM practices by stage to support the development of public policy recommendations tailored to each stage, particularly regarding incentives and barriers to adoption, as well as their impacts on producers.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.1410.145
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary AgricultureSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207