Analysis of Compression as a Disinfestation Technique for the Hessian Fly (Mayetiola destructor (Say)) in Timothy Hay: Second Field Test Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baled Canadian timothy hay underwent testing at a hay processing plant in order to determine if compression could be used as a disinfestation protocol for Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor (Say)) puparia. This has been the second field testing conducted for this project. Pressure sensitive films were randomly distributed; throughout the material, on the chamber walls, and in different orientations, to assess the hay rebaler units ability to induce uniform pressure. Attached to the pressure films were organdy cages containing wheat seedlings infested with Hessian fly puparia. The variables which were tested included the hold time (0.5 and 2.0 s), applied pressure (10.34 and 12.41 MPa), and timothy hay quality (low moisture first cut, high moisture first cut and high moisture second cut hay). A total of 36 tests were completed which included 3 replicates of each condition. Within each test, 10 Hessian fly cages and 10 pressure sensitive films were used. Each fly cage contained approximately 168.56 Hessian puparia, translating into a total Hessian fly count of 60681 for the entire field test. Analysis of the pressure sensitive films showed that 100% of the hay experienced at least 200 kPa (29 psi) of pressure. Following the 75 day post experiment emergence period 5 (0.008%) of the puparia survived from one of the cages in test 4 and one cage in test 5.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".