Laboratory Populations: Is It Representative for Bioassays in Relation to Field Populations of Oriental Fruit Moth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of laboratory insects for physiological studies, both genetic and toxicological, has become very common, but the continuous strains available in the laboratory for several generations without the insertion of genetic material can change the wild phenotypic and behavioral characteristics of the population compared with the field population. The aim of this research was to evaluate susceptility of field and laboratory Oriental Fruit Moth populations with the insecticide, based in toxicological, biochemical, and physicochemical characteristics. Experiments were conducted with four groups of chemical insecticides serving as chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, deltamethrin, and tebufenozide, with seven concentrations defined after pilot testing. Thereafter, the activity of acetylcholinesterase (AchE), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) was evaluated. It was possible to detect differences between populations with regard to carbaryl and chlorpyrifos insecticides. The infrared analysis showed that the populations were distinct from each other, and they exhibit high activity of GST and AchE. The populations from both the field and the laboratory are different in their susceptibility to insecticides.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".