The Effective Insecticidal Activity of the two Extracts Ethyl Acetate and Hexan of Trichilia gilgiana against Sitophilus zeamaïs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">Post-harvest losses are recognized to be one of the critical constraints upon food security among farmers of poor resource in Africa.The use of botanical pesticides in pest management during storage against insects is often encouraged because synthetic insecticides produce multiple side-effects on human health and environment. Insecticidal activity of the hexane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and methanol extracts of bark of <em>Trichilia gilgiana</em> was tested on <em>Sitophilus zeamaïs</em>, <em>Tribolium castaneum </em>and <em>Rhyzopertha dominica</em>. The mortality rate was measured variable. The results of analysis showed that the mortality rate has a very highly significant variation following extracts, doses, insects and time considered (<em>P </em>&lt; 0.001). Extracts with ethyl acetate and hexane of <em>Trichilia gilgiana</em> are effective against <em>S. zeamais </em>at the highest doses (1 g/ 10 mL and 0.5 g/10 mL of solvent). These effective extracts were characterized by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Molecules such as 2-Oxazalidone; thiocyanic acid; Methanethioamide, N,N-dimethyl; 2-Coumaranone and other were characterizated. These results may consolidate traditional use of <em>Trichilia gilgiana</em> in pest management<em>.</em></p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it