Botanical insecticides: for richer, for poorer
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.789
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.447
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Botanical insecticides presently play only a minor role in insect pest management and crop protection; increasingly stringent regulatory requirements in many jurisdictions have prevented all but a handful of botanical products from reaching the marketplace in North America and Europe in the past 20 years. Nonetheless, the regulatory environment and public health needs are creating opportunities for the use of botanicals in industrialized countries in situations where human and animal health are foremost--for pest control in and around homes and gardens, in commercial kitchens and food storage facilities and on companion animals. Botanicals may also find favour in organic food production, both in the field and in controlled environments. In this review it is argued that the greatest benefits from botanicals might be achieved in developing countries, where human pesticide poisonings are most prevalent. Recent studies in Africa suggest that extracts of locally available plants can be effective as crop protectants, either used alone or in mixtures with conventional insecticides at reduced rates. These studies suggest that indigenous knowledge and traditional practice can make valuable contributions to domestic food production in countries where strict enforcement of pesticide regulations is impractical.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Pest Management Science
- Topic
- Insect Pest Control Strategies
- Field
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- University of British Columbia
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- EnforcementBusinessIntegrated pest managementCrop protectionBiotechnologyDeveloping countryPest controlIndigenousProduction (economics)Human healthEnvironmental planningToxicologyNatural resource economicsAgroforestryEnvironmental healthBiologyGeographyEcologyEconomicsMedicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes