Potential Effects of <i>Rhodococcus erythropolis</i> on Other Insects in Mosquito Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the potential impacts of Rhodococcus erythropolis as a biological control method on other insects when controlling mosquitoes. Rhodococcus erythropolis is a common soil bacterium that has been extensively studied as a biological control method for mosquito populations. The application of Rhodococcus erythropolis may affect non-target insects, which raises concerns about its potential ecological impacts. In this study, we systematically assessed the impacts of Rhodococcus erythropolis on non-target insects from an ecological perspective, including the rationale for selecting non-target insects for experiments, data collection and analysis methods, and ecosystem-level impacts. Through case studies and ecological risk assessments, this study provides recommendations and strategies on how to effectively apply Rhodococcus erythropolis to control mosquitoes while protecting other insects, in order to reduce the ecological risks that Rhodococcus may pose in mosquito control, while increasing the efficiency and sustainability of its application. This study provides useful guidance for future research and applications in the field of biological control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".