Laval mortality of <i>Protaetia brevitarsis</i> in accordance with the different incubation conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine whether different incubation conditions can affect the larval mortality of Protaetia brevitarsis. In addition, it was carried out to obtain information about the oviposition pattern of P. brevitarsis. P. brevitarsis that was used it the study was a new‐born adult. Adults rearing condition was as follows; temperature 25°C∼27°C, long‐day length (16L:8D), and relative humidity 80%. Larvae were reared at 25°C∼27°C temperature and 80% relative humidity. A total of four types of incubation conditions was designed. First type is the 50 eggs arranged at regular intervals on sawdust (E1). Second type is the 50 eggs put together in the center (E2). Third type is the shift out sawdust and put out adults of P. brevitarsis then put a new cage (E3). Last, lured with bait and put out adults, then put in a new cage (Control). Two weeks later, cages were checked for larval mortality. All of the cages were checked once a week. Types of collect egg are 3. First, don't collect eggs, just lured adults with bait (Control). Second, collect eggs (R1). Last, sift out adults using sieve (R3). Control and R3 eggs remained in cage. Just R1 eggs were arranged on sawdust in new cage. In this study, just Control 1. (10 times repeat) was finished. And other experimental sets are being carried out. In Control 1., larval mortality is 87%. Adults laid 2597 eggs, total 2259 larvae metamorphosed to pupae. Oviposition pattern is Control 1. (10 times repeat) adults laid 3909 eggs, Control 2. (5 times repeat) adults laid 2257 eggs, R1 (10 times repeat) adults laid 3367 eggs, R2 (5 times repeat) adults laid 2142 eggs. Control 1. is preliminary experiment. So, after finish that experiment, repeat that one more time. Usually, P. brevitarsis laid eggs for approximately 10 weeks. And between 2 to 4 weeks, they laid most eggs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".