MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319864405 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2022.11.002

Toxicity assessment of certain insecticides on the red soft scale insect, Pulvinaria tenuivalvata (Newstead) infesting sugarcane plants

2023· article· en· W4319864405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moustafa M.S. Bakry, A.M.M. Badawy, Lamiaa H.Y. Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoccidaeNymphScale insectHemipteraToxicologyPEST analysisInsectBiologyPesticideInsect pestHorticultureAgronomyBotanyHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulvinaria tenuivalvata (Newstead) (Hemiptera: Coccidae) red soft scale insect is one of the most prevalent insect pests that attacks sugarcane plants. Insecticidal efficiency of six selected insecticides (Malatox, Sulfar, Admiral, Nomolt, Tafaban and Biover) was evaluated for their impact against nymphs and adult females of P. tenuivalvata on sugarcane leaves using leave dipping methods. This investigation was carried out for two successive seasons (July 2021-2022) at the laboratory of the Plant Protection Research Department at the El-Mattana Agricultural Research Station, Luxor Governorate, Egypt. Obtained results showed that the tested insecticides varied in efficacy on the different stages of pest (nymphs and adult females). Moreover, the nymphal stage of P.tenuivalvata was more susceptible to the tested pesticides compared to the adult stage. Admiral and nomolt were the most toxic against the nymphal and adult female stages of P. tenuivalvata on sugarcane leaves, sulfar, however, was the least successful in controlling this pest.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207