MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laboratory Studies to Elucidate the Residual Toxicity of Eight Insecticides to <I>Anystis baccarum</I> (Acari: Anystidae)

2007· article· en· W2177265705 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Claude Laurin, N. J. Bostanian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetamipridCarbarylSpinosadBiologyThiamethoxamImidaclopridToxicologyCyhalothrinAcariPesticideBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anystis baccarum (L.) [=Anystis agilis (Banks)] (Acari: Anystidae) is a common predatory mite recently identified in apple (Malus spp.) orchards and in vineyards (Vitus spp.) in Québec, Canada. Studies of its susceptibility to pesticides used in these crops need to be carried out to encourage integrated pest management programs. A laboratory evaluation of methoxyfenozide, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, spinosad, phosmet, carbaryl, and lambda-cyhalothrin showed that residues of lambda-cyhalothrin, phosmet, and carbaryl were highly toxic in 48-h petri dish bioassays. The field rate of lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.0184 g (AI) /liter, which is 26-fold the estimated LC50 of 0.0007 g (AI) /liter) for this predator. The field rate for phosmet is 0.6000 g (AI) /liter, which is 118-fold the LC50 for phosmet, which is 0.0051 g (AI) /liter), and the field rate for carbaryl is 1.960 g (AI) /liter, which is 784-fold the estimated LC50 of 0.0025 g (AI) /liter). Five other insecticides, methoxyfenozide, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, and spinosad, were evaluated and found to be nontoxic.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207