MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124906654 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2010.0413

Slowing the evolution of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes: a mathematical model

2011· article· en· W2124906654 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Gourley, Rongsong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsecticide resistanceMalariaBiologyResistance (ecology)ExploitToxicologySelection (genetic algorithm)Mosquito controlComputer scienceEcologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A big problem in malaria control is the rapidity with which mosquitoes can develop resistance to insecticides. The possibility of creating evolution-proof insecticides is therefore of considerable interest. Biologists have suggested that effective malaria control, with only weak selection for insecticide resistance, could be achieved if insecticides target only old mosquitoes that have already laid most of their eggs. The strategy aims to exploit the fact that most malarial mosquitoes do not live long enough to transmit the disease. We derive, analyse and compare two mathematical models, one for an insecticide that kills on exposure, and the other for an insecticide that targets only older mosquitoes. Both models predict that insecticide-resistant mosquitoes will become dominant over time but, very importantly, this occurs on a very much slower time scale when the insecticide only affects older mosquitoes. We present analytical results on linear and global stability of the non-trivial equilibrium in which only the resistant mosquito strain is present, together with a theorem comparing the rates of convergence for the two models. Numerical simulations show that the effect of targeting only old mosquitoes on the evolution of resistance is dramatic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207