Bio-efficacy of Flubendiamide 480 SC (Fame 480 SC) against Fruit Borer in Gherkin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field experiments were carried out for two consecutive rabi/summer seasons of 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the farmer’s fields in Kalaghatagi village in Dharwad district, Karnataka, India to evaluate flubendiamide against pumpkin caterpillar or gherkin fruit borer, Diaphania indica (Saunders). Results revealed that three sprays of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha afforded highest protection against fruit borer with 91.3 and 90.5 per cent during first season and 89.1 and 87.0 per cent during second season, respectively over untreated check and produced higher marketable fruit yield of 10.45 and 10.24 t/ha during first season and 9.65 and 9.52 t/ha during second season, respectively and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. Even though there was a slight decrease in population of coccinellid beetles after sprays, the population did not vary among various insecticidal treatments at three, seven and ten days after first, second and third spray during both the seasons. None of the insecticidal treatments showed any type of phytotoxic symptoms on gherkin plants at one, three, seven ten and fifteen days after spraying of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 120 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 180 g a.i./ha.
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".