MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113785751 · doi:10.24018/ejfood.2020.2.6.183

Comparative Advantage of Using Biopesticides in Ukrainian Agroecosystems

2020· article· en· W3113785751 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Biological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité de MontréalMitacs
KeywordsBiopesticideBiosafetyBiofertilizerCrop protectionBiotechnologyAgricultureAgroecosystemSustainabilityPesticideBiologyBusinessAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of unsustainable levels of chemical fertilizers and plant protection chemicals has resulted in a steady decline in soil and crop productivity the world over. Soil biology has undergone irreversible damage, coupled with a high concentration of toxic chemical residues in plant tissues and human bodies. Agricultural practices must evolve to sustainably meet the growing global demand for food without irreversibly damaging soil. Microbial biocontrol agents have tremendous potential to bring sustainability to agriculture in a way that is safe for the environment. Biopesticides do not kill non-target insects, and biosafety is ensured because biopesticides act as antidotes and do not lead to chemical contamination in the soil. This article is part of a larger study conducted in Ukraine by researchers at the Université de Montréal with the support of Mitacs and Earth Alive Clean Technologies. The responses of farmers who use biofertilizers (“user farmers”) and those who do not (“non-user farmers”), along with the responses of manufacturers or suppliers of biofertilizers, and research and development (R&D) scientists are captured to demonstrate the advantages of applying microbial biopesticides to field crops. Participants reported a 15-30% increase in yields and crop production after the application of biopesticides. With the use of biopesticides, farmers cultivated better quality fruits, grains, and tubers with a longer shelf life. Moreover, while the risk of crop loss remains high (60-70%) with chemically grown crops, this risk is reduced to 33% on average if crops are grown using biopesticides. The findings indicate that a large proportion of farmers would prefer to use biopesticides if they are effective and high quality products. In this context, the quality and effectiveness of products is therefore very important. Despite their benefits to soil, human health, and ecosystems, biopesticides face significant challenges and competition vis-à-vis synthetic pesticides for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the development of biopesticides must overcome the problems of poor quality products, short shelf life, delayed action, high market costs, and legal/registration issues.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.151 · 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