MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109984346 · doi:10.1111/jen.12227

Conservation of <i>Ephestia kuehniella</i> eggs as hosts for <i>Trichogramma ostriniae</i>

2015· article· en· W2109984346 on OpenAlexafffund
Mylène St-Onge, Daniel Cormier, Silvia Todorova, Éric Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Entomology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Recherche et de Développement en AgroenvironnementUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTrichogrammaSterilization (economics)TrichogrammatidaeToxicologyParasitismBiological pest controlHorticultureBotanyAnimal scienceEcologyParasitoidHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mass rearing of numerous biological control agents depends on large amounts of factitious hosts like Ephestia kuehniella eggs. Moreover, production of some parasitoids, such as Trichogramma, requires hosts of high quality. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal conservation method that allows E. kuehniella eggs to remain suitable for parasitism and development of Trichogramma ostriniae for the longest period of time. Fifteen sterilization–conservation treatments were compared: nine consisting of submersion of the eggs in liquid nitrogen as a conservation mode, two consisting of sterilization of the eggs with UV and four consisting of sterilization with freezing at −15°C. Liquid nitrogen submersion of E. kuehniella eggs did not allow the production of T. ostriniae . The sterilization by exposition to UV light followed by conservation using vacuum packing and refrigeration at 4°C provided the longest conservation of E. kuehniella eggs for T. ostriniae rearing. It was the only treatment (75.4 ± 4.62%) for which the parasitism rate remained over 70% after 2 weeks.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EntomologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207