Effects of a <i>Chenopodium</i>‐based botanical insecticide/acaricide on <i>Orius insidiosus</i> (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and <i>Aphidius colemani</i> (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UDA-245 is a Chenopodium-based natural insecticide. Forty-eight hours after treatment with this compound, Orius insidiosus (Say) and Aphidius colemani Viereck showed slight contact toxicity at 5 g AI liter(-1). There was no residual toxicity to A colemani. These two beneficials are currently used in commercial flower and vegetable greenhouses for the management of thrips, spider mites, aphids and small caterpillars. In contrast, abamectin and insecticidal soap were toxic by contact to both species. UDA-245 did not reduce the number of eggs laid by treated O insidiosus. The eclosion of these eggs was also not adversely affected by UDA-245. The other two insecticides, abamectin and insecticidal soap had no effect on the emergence of A colemani from treated aphid mummies. However, abamectin decreased the percentage of aphid parasitism by A colemani following a residual treatment. The LC50 for UDA-245 for the two beneficials is slightly over twice the recommended field dose.
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) | 0.001 | 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".