MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855569822 · doi:10.1002/ps.4088

A renaissance for botanical insecticides?

2015· article· en· W1855569822 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsThe RenaissanceBusinessSubject (documents)Product (mathematics)ToxicologyBiotechnologyRisk analysis (engineering)BiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Botanical insecticides continue to be a subject of keen interest among the international research community, reflected in the steady growth in scientific publications devoted to the subject. Until very recently though, the translation of that theory to practice, i.e. the commercialisation and adoption of new botanical insecticides in the marketplace, has seriously lagged behind. Strict regulatory regimes, long the bane of small pesticide producers, are beginning to relax some of the data requirements for 'low-risk' pesticide products, facilitating movement of more botanicals into the commercial arena. In this paper I discuss some of the jurisdictions where botanicals are increasingly finding favour, some of the newer botanical insecticides in the plant and animal health arsenal and some of the specific sectors where botanicals are most likely to compete effectively with other types of insecticidal product.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.214 · 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