Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method of bioassay distinguishing residual contact from fumigant toxicity is described. Basically the apparatus consists of a series of Buchner funnels set up in series. Woven fiberglass cloth was selected as the substratum. By substitution of a dye in place of Insecticide, it was possible, using colorlmetric analysis, to calculate the total milligrams of dye adhering to the cloth. It was assumed that proportionate amounts of dye and insecticide would be picked up. Musea domestica L.was used as the test insect. Two strains of flies, designated as the SES and Ottawa cultures, were used. Fumigant effect was eliminated by application of negative pressure. Since fumigant effect is proportionate to vapour pressure, the rate of evacuation varied for each insecticide. Elimination of fumigant effect brought about a corresponding decrease in mortality. Dosage-mortality data are given for six insecticides in comparison to a "standard" insecticide (dieldrin) utilizing the concept of toxicity index ( Sun, 1950). Statistical analysis of the data indicate significant heterogeneity in eleven out of twenty-four experiments. An analysis of the Chi-square function is presented. Dosage-mortality data for DDT are given. The SES culture was determined to be 141x as resistant for females and 67x as resistant for males as the Ottawa culture, by topical application. Residual contact application indicated that females of the SES culture were 252x as resistant compared to the Ottawa culture. Variation within the SES culture is discussed as a factor in demonstrating the sensitivity of the technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".