Social Perspectives on Larvicide-Based Mosquito Control in Urban Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The spreading of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) in urban waterways, as a biological larvicide to control biting insect populations and mitigate disease transmission, has been subject to scientific scrutiny due to its potential environmental impacts. Public and political discussions have revealed recurring opinions that reflect broader social perspectives. While scientific research on Bti progresses, knowledge of public understanding and perspectives, which are important for decision-making, remains limited. The main objective of this research was to identify and compare the social perspectives of Quebec citizens, primarily in the city of Gatineau, regarding the use of Bti for mosquito and black fly control in aquatic environments. We used Q methodology, a mixed approach combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to identify social perspectives related to the use of Bti. Our analysis revealed three social perspectives, which account for 51% of the explained variance. They reflect the broader range of opinion within citizens, and are described as “The critical environmentalist”, “The diligent mosquito hunter”, and “The Bti enthusiast”. Each accounting for 29%, 12% and 10% of the explained variance, respectively. The common thread across all three perspectives is the minimal public awareness and understanding of Bti and its environmental implications. Providing a first characterization of social perspectives in North America regarding larvicides, this research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of public opinion and informs the development of inclusive and transparent policies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".