Screening of Local Plants for Their Repellent Activity against Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A preliminary screening was carried out on five plants viz ., Azadirachta indica, Citrus medica , Murraya koenigii, Ocimum tenuifloreum and Ricinus communis for their repellent activity against mosquitoes. The repellent activity was studied under natural conditions in the field making use of the traditional knowledge as background. Field observations were undertaken in houses wherein dried powdered plant leaves each (250g) burnt on glowing charcoal produced smoke act as a repellent mosquitocide. Results indicated that among the five plants utilized, Azadirachta indica , Murraya koenigii and Citrus medica provided repellence with a protection time of six hours followed by Ricinus communis and Ocimum tenuifloreum with four hours. Besides these, the incidence of mosquito bites significantly reduced after usage of plant products. It may be concluded that natural products from plants of insecticidal and medicinal values have higher efficiency in reducing mosquito menace due to their repellent toxicity. Further studies on the in-depth laboratory and field bioassays are needed as the present study indicated the scope to use local plants to control and repel mosquitoes .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".