Quantitative method for pheromone delivery in studies of sensory adaptation of moth antennae
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
Abstract A pheromone sprayer and an electroantennogram (EAG) are used to study sensory adaptation in the antennae of male obliquebanded leafrollers, Choristoneura rosaceana and oriental fruit moths, Grapholita molesta , to the main pheromone compounds ( Z )‐11‐tetradecen‐1‐yl acetate ( Z 11‐14:Ac) and ( Z )‐8‐dodecen‐1‐yl acetate ( Z 8‐12:Ac), respectively. The atomization of 0.125, 0.25, 0.5 or 1 μL ethanol min −1 into the EAG air delivery tube at an airflow rate of 2 L min −1 , with resultant concentrations of 6.25, 12.5, 25 or 50 × 10 −5 μL ethanol mL air −1 , respectively, does not affect the EAG response of C. rosaceana or C. molesta after a 30‐min exposure period. The atomization of 0.125 μL min −1 of a solution of 8 mg Z 11‐14:Ac mL −1 ethanol into the EAG air delivery tube at an airflow rate of 2 L min −1 , with a resultant concentration of 0.5 ng pheromone mL −1 air, reduces the EAG response of C. rosaceana by approximately 70% after a 15‐min exposure period. An additional 15 min of exposure to pheromone does not result in increased sensory adaptation. Antennae recover 32% of the lost responsiveness when exposed to pheromone‐free air for 15 min. The atomization of 0.125 μL min −1 of a solution of 8 mg Z 8‐12:Ac mL −1 ethanol into the EAG air delivery tube at an airflow rate of 2 L min −1 , with a resultant concentration of 0.5 ng pheromone mL −1 air, reduces the EAG response of C. molesta antenna by approximately 80% after a 15‐ or 30‐min exposure period. The antennae of this species do not recover responsiveness when exposed to pheromone‐free air for 15 min.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it