MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103810337 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n12p107

Toxicity of the Bt Protein Cry1Ac Expressed in Leaves of the Event of Transgenic Soybean Released in Paraguay Against Spodoptera cosmioides

2020· article· en· W3103810337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cinthia Sosa, Víctor Gómez, Edgar Gaona, Magin Gamarra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLepidoptera genitaliaCry1AcLarvaPEST analysisNoctuidaeSpodopteraBt cottonBacillus thuringiensisCropToxicologyGenetically modified cropsAgronomyBotanyHorticultureVeterinary medicineTransgene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spodoptera cosmioides Walk (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a polyphagous species, considered a secondary pest in soybean crop. The Intacta soybean (Bt soybean) event was released in Paraguay with Bt proteins which are supposed to be toxic for caterpillars. However, the effects of these proteins in the Spodoptera cosmioides biology still uncertainty. This study evaluated the biological activity of Bt soybean in S. cosmioides that were fed on Bt and non-Bt soybean leaves under laboratory conditions. The experiment was carried out at the Laboratory of Entomology; temperature 26±2 ºC; relative humidity: 60±10%; photoperiod: 14:00 h where 150 neonate larvae were used per treatment. The period and viability of each stage, the mortality of larval, number of eggs and neonate per couple, and the period of larvae to adult were the assessed variables. Higher mortality was observed in larvae fed with intact soybeans, but without statistical differences with non-Bt soybeans. For larval survival, period, number and total period, no statistical differences were verified. Higher percentage of fertility was observed in soybeans non-Bt but no statistical differences.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207