MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077055830 · doi:10.1093/sumbio/qvaf014

Microbial alternatives for sustainable insecticide use, a Canadian perspective

2025· article· en· W7077055830 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Integrated pest managementAgricultureSustainable agricultureSet (abstract data type)Pest control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This perspective examines the potential of microbial biological control agents (MBCAs) as sustainable tools for managing agricultural insect pests, set against the backdrop of growing pesticide use and climate-driven shifts in pest pressures. We highlight how Canada's unique combination of supportive policies, dedicated research funding, and clear regulatory frameworks has enabled MBCAs to become an integral part of national pest management strategies. By focusing on regulatory innovation, market trends, and the biological and technological factors shaping MBCA adoption, we outline why Canada's experience offers valuable insights for other countries seeking to reduce reliance on synthetic insecticides. We propose practical directions to expand the global use of MBCAs, emphasizing the importance of harmonized regulations, stronger data infrastructure, and coordinated public-private initiatives. This perspective aims to contribute to the broader discourse on sustainable pest management by showcasing how lessons from Canada can inform more resilient, climate-adapted agricultural systems worldwide.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable MicrobiologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207