MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560223350 · doi:10.5650/jos.ess16080

Bioactivities and Chemical Constituents of Essential Oil Extracted from <i>Artemisia anethoides</i> Against Two Stored Product Insects

2016· article· en· W2560223350 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oleo Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesBeijing Normal University
KeywordsLasioderma serricorneEssential oilDEETToxicologyChemical constituentsChemistryFood scienceTraditional medicineBiologyBotanyLarvaMedicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical constituents of the essential oil extracted from Artemisia anethoides and the bioactivities of essential oil against Tribolium castaneum and Lasioderma serricorne were investigated. The main components of the essential oil were 1,8-cineole (36.54%), 2-isopropyl-5-methyl-3-cyclohexen-1-one (10.40%), terpinen-4-ol (8.58%), 2-isopropyltoluene (6.20) and pinocarveol (5.08%). The essential oil of A. anethoides possessed contact and fumigant toxicities against T. castaneum adults (LD50 = 28.80 μg/adult and LC50 = 13.05 mg/L air, respectively) and against L. serricorne (LD50 = 24.03 μg/adult and LD50 = 8.04 mg/L air, respectively). The crude oil showed repellent activity against T. castaneum and L. serricorne. Especially, the percentage repellency of essential oil was same level with DEET (positive control) against T. castaneum. The results indicated that the essential oil of A. anethoides had the potential to be developed as insecticide and repellent for control of T. castaneum and L. serricorne.

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)0.001
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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