Evaluation of Multiple-Funnel and Slot Traps for Collection of Southern Pine Bark Beetles and Predators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pheromone-baited traps are frequently used for research or in monitoring populations of bark beetles such as the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, and Ips spp. which are important pests of southern pines. We compared the effectiveness of two commercially available trap designs, the multiple-funnel trap and the slot trap, for collection of D. frontalis, three species of Ips, and two of their common predators. Slot traps captured greater numbers of bark beetles while multiple-funnel traps captured more predators. Multiple-funnel traps were judged to be easier to transport and check in the field. This study indicates that slot traps are preferable for monitoring southern bark beetles with the least disruption to natural enemy populations, while multiple-funnel traps are better for monitoring bark beetle/predator ratios. Due to ease of checking and handling, multiple-funnel traps are preferable for uses that involve large numbers of traps, long-distance manual hauling, or frequent relocation of traps.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it