MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300106511 · doi:10.1051/apido:2005048/pdf

Contact and oral toxicity to honey bees (Apis mellifera)of agents registered for use for sweet corn insect control in Ontario, Canada

2005· preprint· en· W4300106511 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Janisse Bailey, Cynthia Scott‐Dupree, Ron Harris, J. H. Tolman, Brenda Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Food and AgricultureCanadian Bee Research Fund
KeywordsInsectHoney BeesHoney beeBiologyToxicologyToxicityAgronomyBotanyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assays were conducted to compare direct and residual contact and oral toxicities to honey bees of sweet corn insecticides and of Bt-sweet corn. Direct contact assays focusing on LC50 determined that technical grade clothianidin was most toxic, > carbofuran, > imidacloprid = spinosad, > lambda-cyhalothrin, > Bacillus thuringiensis. In residual contact assays, forager age bees were exposed to treated non-transgenic sweet corn tassels. Carbofuran treated tassels caused significant mortality up to 2 and 3 days after treatment (DAT) in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Lambda-cyhalothrin treated tassels had no impact on honey bees in 2002; in 2003, their toxicity was significantly higher than the untreated control tassels for 1 DAT. In both years, spinosad, imidacloprid and clothianidin or Bt-sweet corn tassels had no impact on honey bee mortality. Pollen collected from insecticide field treated corn and fed to honey bees had no impact on mortality.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207