MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6995942461

Piégeage et développement pupal du petit coléoptère de la ruche (Aethina tumida) dans les colonies d'abeilles mellifères (Apis mellifera) du Québec

2013· other· fr· W6995942461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtozoal diseaseWest indiesEnvironmental factorPercidae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aethina tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) ou petit coléoptère de la ruche (CR) est un ravageur des colonies d’abeilles domestiques, Apis mellifera L., récemment introduit au Canada. Sa phénologie est méconnue dans les climats tempérés et les moyens de lutte développés pour le capturer et le détruire n’ont pas été testés au Canada. Ce projet de recherche comporte deux volets : 1) déterminer l’effet de facteurs édaphiques sur le développement de la pupe du CR; et 2) déterminer l’efficacité relative de pièges intra-colonie et leur impact sur la productivité de la colonie. Les résultats démontrent qu’un sol presque à saturation diminue significativement le taux de survie de la pupe et influence le sexe ratio des adultes émergents tandis qu’un sol sec augmente la durée de pupaison de plusieurs jours. De plus, les pièges testés réduisent significativement les populations de CR dans la colonie sans nuire à sa productivité. L’efficacité relative des pièges est cependant variable en fonction de plusieurs facteurs. Cette étude contribue à une meilleure compréhension de la phénologie du CR en climat tempéré et permet une utilisation rationnelle des moyens de lutte disponibles.

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 score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction→French-language works237,207→