MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415439320 · doi:10.21083/jeso.v148i0.3816

Comparative toxicity of the nonsteroidal ecdysone agonists tebufenozide and methoxyfenozide to early and late larval instars of the whitemarked tussock moth, <i>Orgyia leucostigma</i>

2017· article· W4415439320 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédéric Dallaire, Michel Cusson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of Canada
KeywordsInstarEcdysoneToxicityLarvaTussockInsect growth regulator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insecticidal toxicity can vary widely as a function of the developmental stage of the insect being targeted. Here the toxicity of the nonsteroidal ecdysone agonists tebufenozide and methoxyfenozide was evaluated against early and late instars of the white-marked tussock moth, Orgyia leucostigma (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), using a droplet-feeding bioassay. On the basis of L LD50 estimates, methoxyfenozide was ~9 and 22 times more effective than tebufenozide in inducing mortality in 1st and 4th instars of O. leucostigma, respectively. U Unlike methoxyfenozide, tebufenozide was unable to cause more than 70% mortality in 4th instars, even at the highest dose tested (1 μg/larva). A Analysis of the present data suggests that susceptibility of late instar larvae to tebufenozide is significantly compromised whereas that to methoxyfenozide is much less so, which suggests that the mechanism conferring resistance to tebufenozide in late instar larvae is either ineffective or less effective in the case of methoxyfenozide.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of OntarioSame topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207