Substrate Effects on Pupation and Adult Emergence of<i>Hermetia illucens</i>(Diptera: Stratiomyidae): Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black soldier flies, Hermetia illucens (L.) (Diptera: Stratiomyidae), are of particular interest for their applications in waste management. Feeding on decaying organic waste, black soldier flies successfully reduce manure in confined animal feeding operations of poultry, swine, and cattle. To optimize waste conversion in confined animal feeding operations and landfill facilities, it is imperative to optimize black soldier fly development. Unfortunately, black soldier flies only convert waste during their larval feeding stages and therefore it is of interest to optimize the nonfeeding stages of development, specifically, the postfeeding and pupal stages. The time spent in these stages is thought to be determined by the pupation substrate encountered by the postfeeding larvae. The objective of this study was to determine the effect different pupation substrates have on postfeeding development time, pupation time, and adult emergence success. Five pupation substrates were compared: wood shavings, potting soil, topsoil, sand, and nothing. Postfeeding larvae took longer to reach pupation in the absence of a pupation substrate, although reaching pupation in the shortest time in potting soil and wood shavings. The time spent in the pupal stage was shortest in the absence of a pupation substrate. However, fewer adults emerged when a pupation substrate was not provided.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".