Evaluation of traps of six different designs to capture pine sawyer beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1 Sawyer beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and metallic wood‐boring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) attack recently killed or felled trees. They are attracted to potential hosts by volatiles and possibly by visual cues. We examined traps of six different designs to determine the role of silhouette and shape in the capture of pine sawyer beetles, Monochamus L. 2 Traps with a round black cylinder, a single vane (clear or black), or cross vanes (clear or black) all mounted above a pan were compared to an open pan. Each pan contained soapy water to retain insects. 3 Traps with a black silhouette were significantly more effective in capturing male and female Monochamus scutellatus (Say) than traps with or without clear vanes. For both sexes of M. mutator LeConte, pan traps were as effective as traps with a black silhouette. Silhouette was not important for the capture of male and female M. notatus (Drury). Trap catches for the six trap types were not significantly different for male Buprestis maculativentris Say. 4 A pan trap with a black silhouette is recommended for general use in capturing wood‐boring cerambycids and buprestids.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".