MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016308680 · doi:10.1080/10643380801910090

Bioremediation and Phytoremediation of Pesticides: Recent Advances

2009· article· en· W2016308680 on OpenAlexaff
Sarfraz Hussain, Tariq Siddique, Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Saleem

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioremediationPhytoremediationPollutantPesticideMicroorganismEnvironmental remediationBiodegradationBiotechnologyBiologyBiochemical engineeringContaminationBacteriaEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of genetically modified or native microorganisms and plants to degrade or remove pollutants has emerged as a powerful technology for in situ remediation. An understanding of the genetic basis of the mechanisms of how microorganisms and plants biodegrade pollutants and how they interact with the environment is important for successful implementation of this technology. Recent studies have demonstrated that microbes and transgenic plants produce pesticide-degradaing enzymes that can mineralize different groups of pesticides and their metabolites with greater efficiency. This review describes the most recent progress in biotechnological approaches for enhancing the capability of microorganisms and plants through the characterization and transfer of pesticide-degrading genes, induction of catabolic pathways, and display of cell surface enzymes.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations189
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and TechnologySame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207