MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Botanical Insecticides in the Twenty-First Century—Fulfilling Their Promise?

2019· review· en· W2979514320 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

VenueAnnual Review of Entomology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrethrumCommercializationAzadirachtinBiologyAgricultureEuropean unionBiotechnologyPesticideToxicologyBusinessInternational tradeEcologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic interest in plant natural products with insecticidal properties has continued to grow in the past 20 years, while commercialization of new botanical insecticides and market expansion of existing botanicals has lagged considerably behind. Insecticides based on pyrethrum and neem (azadirachtin) continue to be standard bearers in this class of pesticides, but globally, their increased presence is largely a consequence of introduction into new jurisdictions. Insecticides based on plant essential oils are just beginning to emerge as useful plant protectants. Some countries (such as Turkey, Uruguay, the United Arab Emirates, and Australia) have relaxed regulatory requirements for specific plant extracts and oils, while in North America and the European Union, stricter requirements have slowed progress toward commercialization of new products. Botanicals are likely to remain niche products in many agricultural regions and may have the greatest impact in developing countries in tropical regions where the source plants are readily available and conventional products are both expensive and dangerous to users.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.262 · 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