MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122877762 · doi:10.1002/ps.1157

Comparative toxicity of <i>Rosmarinus officinalis</i> L. essential oil and blends of its major constituents against <i>Tetranychus urticae</i> Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) on two different host plants

2006· article· en· W2122877762 on OpenAlexaff
Saber Miresmailli, Rod Bradbury, Murray B. Isman

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetranychus urticaeRosmarinusBiologySpider miteAcariBioassayBotanyOfficinalisHost (biology)ToxicityToxicologyHorticultureChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioassays of Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oil and blends of its major constituents were conducted using host-specific strains of the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, on bean and tomato plants. Two constituents tested individually against a bean host strain and five constituents tested individually against a tomato host strain accounted for most of the toxicity of the natural oil. Other constituents were relatively inactive when tested individually. Toxicity of blends of selected constituents indicated a synergistic effect among the active and inactive constituents, with the presence of all constituents necessary to equal the toxicity of the natural oil.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations270
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePest Management ScienceSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207