MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135295141 · doi:10.1603/ec10018

Activity of <I>Bacillus thuringiensis</I> Isolates Against Immature Horn Fly and Stable Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)

2010· article· en· W2135295141 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Lysyk, L. D. Kalischuk-Tymensen, Kateryn Rochon, L. Brent Selinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscidaeAgricultureLibrary scienceResearch centreBacillus thuringiensisAgricultural economicsBiologyAgricultural scienceEcologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We screened 85 isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner), making up 57 different subspecies, and two isolates of Bacillus sphaericus (Meyer and Neide) for activity against immature horn flies, Haematobia irritans (L.), and stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.). The majority of B. thuringiensis and the B. sphaericus isolates had little or no activity against horn fly and stable fly. Approximately 87% of the isolates caused < 50% mortality of horn fly larvae and 64% caused < 25% mortality. For stable fly, 95% of the isolates caused < 50% mortality, and 93% caused < 25% mortality. Five isolates were highly toxic to horn fly and stable fly immatures. These isolates were B. t. tolworthi 4L3, B. t. darmstadiensis 4M1, B. t. thompsoni 401, B. t. thuringiensis HD2, and B. t. kurstaki HD945. The LD50 values ranged from 2.2 to 7.9 x 10(6) spores per g manure for horn fly and from 6.3 to 35 x 10(6) spores per g media for stable fly. These were consistently more toxic compared with the B. t. israelensis isolates examined. All had DNA that hybridized with cry1Aa, cry1Ab, and cry1Ac toxin probes, three hybridized with a cry1B probe, and two hybridized with a cry2A probe. These may have potential for use in integrated management of pest flies.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207