Controlled Aeration During Rice Storage: Effects of Geographic Location on Insect Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative storage strategies in grains are critical in combating insect problems, especially withmany traditional chemicals being threatened for reduction. This work examined the use of controlled ambientaeration to reduce the temperature and to inhibit insect populations in stored rice at three geographicallydifferent locations in Arkansas. Cypress rice at a northeast (NE) and central (CEN) storage location and cv.cocodrie at a southeast (SE) location were stored for one season. Half of the bins at each site were aeratedtraditionally, and the remaining bins were aerated with a thermostatically-activated controller to reduce thetemperatures within the bins. Insects, in cages, were placed in each bin, and the cages were sampledperiodically to determine their viability. The ambient conditions available for aeration control were notsignificantly different from one another. Temperatures within the bins aerated by the controller were notsignificantly lower than those in manually-aerated bins. Live insects recovered at each sampling time werereduced with storage duration, and fewer were recovered from the SE location (most likely due to cultivar).Total recovered insects, after the rice from each cage was allowed to incubate, were reduced with the aerationcontroller in addition to the previously mentioned parameters.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".