MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288619531 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.06

Effect of Biopesticides Against Sucking Insect Pests of Brinjal Crop Under Field Conditions

2016· article· en· W2288619531 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzadirachtaBiologyBiopesticideChemical controlToxicologyHorticulturePopulationAcaricideEucalyptusCropAzadirachtinBotanyPesticideAgronomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field study was carried out during 2013 at the experimental area of Entomology Section, Agriculture Research Institute, (ARI) Tando Jam to examine the effect of bio-pesticides against sucking insect pests of brinjal crop under field conditions. Five treatments with three replications were applied. The treatments were: T1=chemical control (confidor/Diamond), T2=Neem (Azadirachta indica), T3= Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), T4= Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globus), T5= Untreated (Control). Three insect pests were found infesting brinjal including white flies, jassid and mites. Pre treatment- and post-treatment observations were recorded. The results revealed that against white fly, the first spray of chemical control(confidor) showed highest reduction percent (96.62%) followed by Neem extract (82.60%), Tobacco extract (75.95%), Eucalyptus extract (73.93%) and lowest for untreated control (11.07%); while in the second spray also, chemical control(Diamond) showed highest effect against white fly (78.32%); followed by Neem extract (67.53%), Tobacco extract (56.43%), Eucalyptus extract (42.25%) and least by untreated plot (5.49%). Against jassid, chemical control (confidor) showed highest effect (77.90%) as observed during 1st spray, followed by Neem extract (55.95%), Tobacco extract (53.38%), Eucalyptus extract (53.99%) and untreated control (8.00%), while after second spray also chemical control (Diamond) showed highest reduction percent (81.70%) followed by Neem extract (68.73%), Tobacco extract (55.72%), Eucalyptus extract (50.66%) and the lowest was resulted by untreated control (13.91%). Against mites population on brinjal the first spray results showed that chemical control (confidor) showed highest effect (98.19%) followed by Neem extract (96.19%), Tobacco extract (95.75%), Eucalyptus extract (86.86%) and least population was recorded in untreated control (9.96%). After second spray, chemical control (Diamond) showed highest reduction percent (99.65%), followed by Neem extract (98.33%), Tobacco extract (92.85%), Eucalyptus extract (88.93%) and the lowest reduction percent was resulted by untreated control (9.14%) respectively. Chemical control (confidor/Diamond) showed its superiority in effect to combat sucking insect pests studied in brinjal, followed by Neem extract, Tobacco extract, Eucalyptus extract and untreated control remained the least.

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)0.001
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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