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>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".