Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reanalysis of counts of horn fly, Hematobia irritans (L.), obtained from a variety of cattle herds indicated that aggregation of the flies within herds decreased as mean fly density increased. Aggregation was also related to the proportion of fly-resistant and fly-susceptible cattle in a herd. Herds were grouped according to their degree of horn fly aggregation. Low aggregation herds included larger framed Angus, Horned Hereford, Polled Hereford, and Red Poll breeds. Moderate aggregation occurred with Brahman, Charolais, small-framed Angus, mixed cows, and Hereford x Charolais cross. High aggregation occurred with Chianina and mixed herds. Relationships between the sample means and variances varied among aggregation groups. A resampling approach was used to determine the influence of random sampling of a herd on the proportion of horn fly population estimates within fixed percentages of the true mean. The proportion of sample means within +/- 5, 10, 15, and 20% of the true means varied with the proportion of the herd sampled, the mean and variance of fly density, and herd size. Recommendations for obtaining sample size to estimate fly density within a fixed percentage of the true mean are given.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".