MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Treatments for Stored-Product and Quarantine Insects

2002· review· en· W2128866213 on OpenAlexaff
Paul G. Fields, N. D. G. White

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersInternational Atomic Energy Agency
KeywordsQuarantineFumigationBiologyPest controlBromideIntegrated pest managementToxicologyPEST analysisSanitationWaste managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceHorticultureEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methyl bromide is used to control insects as a space fumigant in flour and feed mills and ship holds, as a product fumigant for some fruit and cereals, and for general quarantine purposes. Methyl bromide acts rapidly, controlling insects in less than 48 h in space fumigations, and it has a wide spectrum of activity, controlling not only insects but also nematodes and plant-pathogenic microbes. This chemical will be banned in 2005 in developed countries, except for exceptional quarantine purposes, because it depletes ozone in the atmosphere. Many alternatives have been tested as replacements for methyl bromide, from physical control methods such as heat, cold, and sanitation to fumigant replacements such as phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride, and carbonyl sulfide, among others. Individual situations will require their own type of pest control techniques, but the most promising include integrated pest management tactics and combinations of treatments such as phosphine, carbon dioxide, and heat.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations543
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of EntomologySame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207