MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097694704

Grasshopper Management

2003· article· en· W7097694704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasshopperCropRangelandForageLivestockCroppingPEST analysisAgriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grasshoppers are a major pest of both cultivated cropsand rangeland grasses in the world’s semi-arid regions. Areas receiving less than 750 mm of precipitation in the form of rain or snow are particularly susceptible. Traditionally drier areas like southern Alberta are more prone to recurring problems, but serious grasshopper infestations can occur in cropland throughout the province. Although the majority of grasshopper damage has been to cereal grains, other crops can be seriously affected. In a more diversified agricultural landscape where cereal crops are often rotated with other cultivars such as canola, lentil and peas, grasshoppers continue to cause significant economic loss in Alberta. Grasshoppers eat 30 to 100 mg of plant material (dry weight) each day. Forage losses are seldom estimated, but it has been shown that even a moderate infestation of 10 grasshoppers/square metre can typically consume up to 60 per cent of the available forage, depending on the condition of the forage stand. The insects can also consume ALL of the cereal crops, but they usually work the outer edges of fields. The type and extent of crop damage will depend on the type of crop, how well the crop is growing, the number of grasshoppers present, and whether or not adequate cultural and chemical controls are used. Grasshopper description The name “grasshopper ” has been given to a very large and diverse group of insects. All members of the group are characterized by chewing mouth parts, slender bodies, wings that fold lengthwise, large powerful hind legs for jumping and a gradual change in form and size as they develop. Grasshoppers are divided into two major subgroups: the short-horned grasshoppers (Figure 1) and the long-horned grasshoppers, Mormon crickets and katydids (Figure 2). Short-horned grasshoppers are responsible for most of the reported crop losses. As a result, individuals of this subgroup are popularly referred to as “grasshoppers.” Figure 1. A mature two-striped female grasshopper (Melanoplus bivittatus). Note the distinct two stripes running the full length of the body and the single black stripe on the hind leg. Figure 2. The Mormon cricket (Anabrus simplex) is an example of a long-horned grasshopper. The adult male hangs on vegetation and sings loudly. This species can reach high densities in the U.S., but does not normally cause a problem in Canada. Ph ot o: D an

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→