Topical Toxicity of Esenbeckia pumila Extracts on Leaf-Cutting Ants Atta laevigata and Acromyrmex balzani
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the topical toxicity of the Esenbeckia pumila plant extracts on workers of the Atta laevigata and Acromyrmex balzani. Five leaf fractions E. pumila were drawn viz., the hexane, ethanolic, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and methanolic extracts, as well as the ethanolic fruit extracts. Further, the phytochemical leaf extract exploration was performed, and the secondary compounds detected were as follows: flavonoids, anthraquinones, coumarins, cardioactive heterosides and tannins. The different leaf and fruit extract fractions were first diluted in 70% ethyl alcohol, and different doses were topically applied to the A. laevigata and A. balzani workers. All the fractions extracted exhibited formicidal effects and this effect was greater to A. laevigata rather than to A. balzani. Only a small percentage of the workers succumbed within the first few hours of application of the different extracts in comparison with the workers which died only after a longer exposure time (72 h) implying a delayed effect of E. pumila extracts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".