MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913716989 · doi:10.1684/agr.2011.0531

Biocide effect of crude aqueous extracts of Capsicum frutescens, Melia azedarach and Peganum harmala on in-orchard Euphyllura olivina Costa (Homoptera, Psyllidae)

2011· article· en· W1913716989 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Meftah, Ahmed Boughdad, Aziz Bouchelta

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers Agricultures · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelia azedarachPeganum harmalaDimethoateBiologyHorticulturePEST analysisHomopteraMeliaceaeOrchardPopulationBotanyToxicologyAgronomyPesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeking alternative control methods against the olive psyllid, Euphyllura olivina, crude aqueous extracts of Capsicum frutescens, Melia azedarach and Peganum harmala were used on trees infested with the pest. Fifty grams of each dried plant extract/liter of water were sprayed. Trees treated with water or dimethoate were used respectively as control or standard. The population densities of the psyllid were counted 2, 6 and 14 days after treatment. The extracts significantly affected the psyllid populations. According to the observation period, the densities of the insect varied from 0 to 64, 2 to 90 and from 0 to 83 individuals/olive branch for C. frutescens, M. azedarach and for P. harmala, respectively. In the controls blocks, the psyllid densities ranged from 0 to 9 and from 32 to 101 individuals/olive branch for dimethoate and water, respectively. The results are discussed in the perspective of olive pest management.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers AgriculturesSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207