MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Different Organophosphate Pesticides against Jassid Feeding on Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus)

2012· article· en· W2321809874 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saleem Eijaz, M. Farhanullah Khan, Khalid Mahmood, Sohail Shaukat, A. A. Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbelmoschusOrganophosphatePesticideToxicologyBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies were conducted for the determination of efficacy of different organophosphate pesticides viz Profenofos, Dimethoate , Acephate and Malathion against jassid (Amrasca devastans) feeding on okra crop. Seeds of okra crop were planted in randomized block design with 3 replicates. The pretreatment observations were recorded at 24 hour before spray, while, the post-treatment observations were taken after 1, 2, 3,4,5,6 and 7 days of treatment. The crop was sprayed four times repeatedly with 7 day interval during the experimental period. The results revealed that all of the tested pesticides reduced the population of Amrasca devastans except Profenofos. Though the Profenofos was unable to reduce the pest population but it was able to somewhat control the further proliferation of pest. In contrary Dimethoate was found as the most effective against the jassid with significant reduction in pest population against the control and other treatments.The results obtained from the research concluded that the organophosphate pesticides including Dimethoate, Acephate, and Malathion were found effective for controlling the jassid population feeding on okra but the low dose of pesticides including Profenfos were found ineffective.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAgricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsFrench-language works237,207