MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039391161 · doi:10.12741/ebrasilis.v4i1.112

Técnica Alternativa para Montagem de Insetos em Lâminas Permanentes para Visualização em Microscopia Óptica

2011· article· pt· W2039391161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franziska Huber, Fernanda Helena dos Reis

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomoBrasilis · 2011
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry Medicinal Plant Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsChemistryHumanitiesMolecular biologyBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversas substâncias químicas são utilizadas na montagem de insetos em lâminas permanentes para visualização em microscopia óptica. O alto custo, a indisponibilidade no comércio convencional e a periculosidade de tais substâncias químicas, fazem com que este meio de estudo prático torne-se pouco viável para alguns estudos didáticos. Dentre os diversos produtos químicos utilizados para a montagem de insetos em lâminas permanentes os mais utilizados são o xilol, bálsamo do Canadá, hidróxido de potássio, alcoóis, fenol, creosoto, entre outros. Todos estes produtos químicos apresentam, individualmente ou em conjunto, alguns riscos para a saúde humana. Com a finalidade de encontrar materiais alternativos, de fácil acesso e baixa toxicidade para a montagem de insetos em lâminas permanentes para microscopia, o presente estudo testou a eficiência de algumas substâncias alternativas. Foram testados: verniz vitral incolor (Acrilex®) como substituto do bálsamo do Canadá e solvente para artesanato (Acrilex®), Óleo de imersão (Merck®) e xilol em substituição ao creosoto de Faia. Foram realizadas montagens de Ctenocephalides sp., de Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) e Pediculus sp.. O uso de verniz vitral incolor mostrou ser um substituto barato e eficiente ao Bálsamo do Canadá, oferecendo ótima transparência e visualização, além de rápida secagem. O óleo de imersão pôde ser utilizado em substituição ao creosoto de Faia, tanto para montagens em bálsamo, quanto em verniz, sendo que a última combinação apresentou vantagens, devido à rapidez da secagem do verniz. O solvente para artesanato não obteve bons resultados aparentando agredir demasiadamente a quitina dos insetos, efeito observado principalmente quando em combinação com o verniz vitral. Alternative Permanent Slide Mounting Technique of Insects for Light Microscopy Abstract. Various chemicals are used in the mounting of insects on permanent slides for optical microscopy. The high cost, little availability in ordinary commerce and the dangers make their use impractical for some studies. Among the various chemicals used for the microscopic mounting of insects are Xylene, Canada Balsam, Hydroxide Potassium, Alcohols, Phenol and Creosote. All these chemicals present, individually or collectively, some risks to human health. In order to find alternative materials of easy access and low toxicity, for the permanent mout of insects, this study tested the efficacy of some alternatives materials. Were tested: Colorless varnish (Acrilex ®) as a substitute for Canada balsam and solvent (Acrilex ®), Immersion Oil for microscopy (Merck ®) and Xylene as substitutes for creosote. There were mounted especimens of Ctenocephalides sp., Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) and Pediculus sp.. The use of Varnish Colorless proved to be an efficient and cheap substitute to Canada Balsam because it offered transparency, optimal visualization, and rapid drying. The immersion oil might be used instead of Creosote, both mounted in Balsam, as in varnish. The last combination was more advantageous due to rapid drying of the varnish. Solvent did not get good results appearing to damage insect chitin, an effect observed especially when combined with the varnish.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomoBrasilisSame topicPhytochemistry Medicinal Plant ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207