MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans: Diptera, Muscidae) trap response to changes in effective trap height caused by growing vegetation

2008· article· en· W2037789124 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vector Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsStomoxysMuscidaeStable flyTrap (plumbing)Vegetation (pathology)BiologyEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans L.) are blood-feeding pests of cattle, whose populations are often monitored using sticky traps. Trap responses at different heights were compared with: 1) a choice and no-choice test, with sticky cards set at 30 and 121 cm heights (above ground), and 2) tall (120 cm) traps placed in short (3 cm) and tall (40 cm) grass to assess how vegetation height affects trap catches. In the first experiment, the percentage of upper to lower trap catches were similar at choice (16%) and no-choice traps (15%). In the vegetation study, stable fly catch height data were fitted to gamma distributions to determine the most productive trap heights; 20 cm above short grass and 24 cm above tall grass (from lower edge of trap). The results indicate that traps used to monitor stable fly populations should be maintained at a constant distance above surrounding vegetation rather than ground surface, otherwise trap data can be misleading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it