Genetically Modified Cotton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgenic cotton is one of the earliest genetically modified crop plants grown globally. Field trials and biosafety evaluations on Bt cotton carrying Cry1Ac were started in 1993 and field plantations were permitted in 1996. This cotton resulted in a significant reduction in insecticide usage as lepidopteran insects were largely reduced in cotton fields though some of the minor pests (non-lepidopteran) could build their population in cotton fields. Though the resistance breakage against the said pests is reported intermittently, yet, through management strategies, Bt cotton is still grown worldwide in cotton-growing areas. Apart from this, new technologies (Bolgaurd, Bollgaurd-II, and Bollguard-III) are being developed continuously to increase the efficiency of Bt proteins and to control the resistance breakage by lepidopteran and certain other insect pests. This technology was introduced by Monsanto which is a big giant in the agriculture and seed sector and has been involved in farmers’ victimization in the US and Canada by suing them through courts of law for using their technology. Similarly, they commercialized their seed in India in collaboration with Mahyco, which reduced the cost of production for Indian farmers; yet, certain court and management issues, like the use of refuge seed, turned out to be irritants for Indian farmers. Pakistan could not yet benefit from Bollguard-II and Bollguarg-III, primarily due to the same policies. China, on the other hand, developed its own technologies alongside using technologies from Monsanto. Talking of the rest of the world, it will prove a boom if technologies are developed locally by the public sector, otherwise, the private sector may turn it into dust any time they don’t find their monitory benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.210 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".