MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180554220 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2021.6.001

Preparation and biological activity evaluation of some benzoylthiourea and benzoylurea compounds

2021· article· en· W3180554220 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antar A. Abdelhamid, A. M. M. Elsaghiera, Safwat A. Aref, Mohamed A. Gad, Nabila A. Ahmed, Shaban A. A. Abdel‐Raheem

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryInsect growth regulatorInstarPhenylhydrazineLarvaMoultingDiflubenzuronChitinCuticle (hair)CarboxamideToxicologyPharmacologyStereochemistryBiochemistryOrganic chemistryChitosanBotanyBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the complicated problems coming from excessive applications of insecticides, searching for safe substitutes to these insecticides has become a necessity. Thus, the insect growth regulators are candidates to be used in such concern. Comparative studies of the effects of three compounds, 2-benzoyl-N-phenylhydrazine-1-carbothioamide (1), 2-(cyanoacetyl)-N-phenylhydrazine-1-carboxamide (2) and N-(2-(2-cyanoacetyl)hydrazinecarbonothioyl)furan-2-carboxamide (3) (an insect growth regulator inhibiting chitin synthesis), were conducted on Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval, 1833). The compounds, orally administered, caused larval mortality proportional to the concentrations in the food source. larvae were unable to complete the molting process and died in the old larval cuticle. Larvae contaminated by sublethal doses completed their development to adulthood. N-(2-(2-cyanoacetyl)hydrazinecarbonothioyl)furan-2-carboxamide (3) is more active than the other compounds have LC50 17.082 ppm for 2nd instar larvae and 60.832 ppm for 4th instar larvae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207