Quantitative method for pheromone delivery in studies of sensory adaptation of moth antennae
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".