Field Evaluation Against Mosquitoes of Regular and Polymer-Based Deet Formulations in Manitoba, Canada, with Comment on Methodological Issues
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies were carried out in Manitoba, Canada, to evaluate the efficacy of three repellent products for protection of human subjects against mosquito bites. All test substances contained the active ingredient N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (deet); two were polymer-based creams (3M Ultrathon Insect Repellent and Morflex DEET Insect Repellent 30) and the third (Muskol Insect Repellent) was an alcohol-based pump spray formulation. Application of repellent was to the forearm and lower legs of subjects at 0.75 or 0.83 mg deet/cm2. Exposure to mosquito attack was continuous, and efficacy was determined by measuring complete protection time (CPT). Regardless of whether delivered as a polymer cream or in alcohol, mean CPT was similar for the tested repellents at 623 ± 107 to 644 ± 163 min. By contrast, mean CPT for the different test subjects showed significant variation, ranging from 531 ± 42 to 756 ± 54 min. Mosquito collections from untreated human test subjects, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps and sweep-netting consisted primarily of Ochlerotatus sticticus (Meigen) and Aedes vexans (Meigen). Relative catch of these two species was similar for different sampling methods through much of the day, but not in the evening, when CDC light traps oversampled Ae. vexans relative to untreated human subjects. Results are used to highlight the need to account for intersubject variation when designing repellent studies, and also are used as a basis to discuss limitations associated with using relatively few subjects when testing repellents.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it