MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130954070 · doi:10.7202/705998ar

Efficacy, persistence, ground deposition, and human exposure of polymer-encapsulated lindane and chlorpyrifos used for control of the southern pine beetle

2005· article· en· W2130954070 on OpenAlex
C. Wayne Berisford, Mark J. Dalusky, Parshall B. Bush, John W. Taylor, Yvette C. Berisford

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalQuebec Society for the Protection of Plants
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLindaneChlorpyrifosPesticideBark beetleToxicologyPersistence (discontinuity)ChemistryBiologyAgronomyBark (sound)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formulations of lindane and chlorpyrifos were evaluated to determine if polymer encapsulation extended the duration of southern pine beetle ( Dendroctonusfrontalis ) control, reduced ground deposition, increased persistence on bark or reduced potential human exposure relative to emulsifiable concentrate formulations. Encapsulation did not extend efficacy or reduce ground deposition of either insecticide when compared with the standard emulsifiable formulations. Encapsulation extended residue persistence of chlorpyrifos on bark, but not of lindane. The potential risk of human exposure to bark which was still wet with chlorpyrifos was increased 2.2 times by encapsulation, whereas, similar exposure to lindane was unaffected by encapsulation. After the insecticides had dried on the bark, the encapsulated formulations reduced risk to lindane by approximately 90% and by 83 % for chlorpyrifos.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.184 · 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