Response of <i>Monochamus</i> (Col., Cerambycidae) and some Buprestidae to flight intercept traps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Flight intercept traps of various designs (multiple funnel, panel or crossvane) were tested to determine their effectiveness in capturing Monochamus beetles. The retention of insects in crossvane traps with the collection receptacle left dry, dry with insecticide or partially filled with soapy water, and the efficacy of treating the crossvane panels with a slippery surfactant was investigated. Captures of female (but not male) Monochamus scutellatus scutellatus (Col., Cerambycidae) were significantly higher in custom‐made crossvane traps than two commercially available funnel or panel traps. Male and female M. mutator responded equally to traps of all designs, as did three species of Buprestidae ( Buprestris maculativentris , Dicerca tenebrosa and Chalcophora virginiensis ). Dry crossvane traps with or without insecticide were less effective than wet traps in retaining insects. Adding a surfactant to increase the slipperiness of the trap panels generally resulted in significantly higher trap catches than untreated traps.
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) | 0.002 | 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".