MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479830760 · doi:10.1021/bk-2004-0887.ch004

Plant Essential Oils as Green Pesticides for Pest and Disease Management

2004· book-chapter· en· W2479830760 on OpenAlexaff
Murray B. Isman

Bibliographic record

VenueACS symposium series · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPesticideIntegrated pest managementAgricultureBiologyPEST analysisCommercializationBiotechnologyPlant diseaseToxicologyEssential oilBusinessFood scienceAgronomyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certain plant essential oils show a broad spectrum of activity against pest insects and plant pathogenic fungi, and some oils have a long tradition of use in the protection of stored products. Recent investigations indicate that some chemical constituents of these oils interfere with the octopaminergic nervous system in insects. As this target site is not shared with mammals, most essential oil chemicals are relatively non-toxic to laboratory animals and fish in toxieological tests, and meet the criteria for "reduced risk" pesticides. Some of these oils and their constituent chemicals are widely used as flavoring agents in foods and beverages and are even exempt from pesticide registration in the United States. This special regulatory status combined with the wide availability of essential oils from the flavor and fragrance industries, has made it possible to fast-track commercialization of essential oil-based pesticides in the U.S.A. Though well received by consumers for use against home and garden pests, these "green pesticides" can also prove effective in agricultural situations, particularly for organic food production.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.012

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations75
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS symposium seriesSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207