Influence of burlap-band colour on larval, pupal, and egg-mass counts of <i>Lymantria dispar</i> (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the effect of the colour of burlap bands (black versus naturally coloured or tan burlap) affixed to red oak, Quercus rubra (L.) (Fagaceae), and how it influences selection of larval resting site, pupation site, and egg-mass counts of gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.). In field experiments with half black and half tan burlap bands, the mean number of larvae, pupae, and egg masses were significantly greater under the black section of burlap. Individual burlap bands composed of either black or tan burlap affixed to separate trees produced similar significant results for larvae and pupae. When two burlap bands composed of opposite colours (black versus tan) were affixed to the same tree, significantly more larvae were found under the upper band, regardless of colour. In contrast, pupa and egg-mass densities were significantly greater under black bands, regardless of band position.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".