MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101279138 · doi:10.2987/09-5928.1

Accumulated Organic Debris in Catch Basins Improves the Efficacy of S-Methoprene Against Mosquitoes in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2101279138 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stacey L. Baker, Norman D. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Mosquito Control Association · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentYork University
KeywordsMethopreneDebrisSedimentDrainage basinBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To control West Nile Virus in the greater Toronto area of Ontario, Canada, S-methoprene (Altosid XRbriquets 2.1% AI) is applied each year to storm water catch basins. Because the efficacy of the XRbriquets to reduce adult mosquito populations had not been evaluated locally and was influenced by organic debris in a pilot study, we compared the efficacy of the briquets in 17 sediment and debris-filled catch basins versus 20 catch basins that were vacuumed free of debris. Emergence rates approached 100% in the 5 untreated control catch basins. Emergence rates were significantly lower, and S-methoprene was detected more often and at higher levels, in debris-filled basins versus cleaned catch basins. Overall, 20% of pupae emerged from clean catch basins versus only 3% from debris-filled ones, the difference between treatments becoming significant after 26 days. S-methoprene and total organic carbon concentrations in the catch basins were positively correlated (P < 0.001). We hypothesize that S-methoprene is binding to the organic fraction in the water and sediment in the debris-filled basins, prolonging S-methoprene doses, which are reflected in lower mosquito emergence rates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Mosquito Control AssociationSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207