Seeking alternatives to probit 9 when developing treatments for wood packaging materials under ISPM No. 15
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISPM No. 15 presents guidelines for treating wood packaging material used in international trade. There are currently two approved phytosanitary treatments: heat treatment and methyl bromide fumigation. New treatments are under development, and are needed given that methyl bromide is being phased out. Probit 9 efficacy (100% mortality of at least 93 613 test organisms) has been suggested as an evaluation criterion for new wood treatments, and is based on fruit fly research. We question requiring probit 9 efficacy for wood pests (insects, nematodes and fungi) and discuss challenges to meeting this requirement. Instead, we suggest a 3‐step, laboratory‐based alternative approach. Step 1 involves laboratory experiments (screening) to estimate the lethal dose for the most tolerant stage of each target pest. We consider each infested piece of wood as an experimental unit, not the individual pests, to avoid pseudoreplication. Step 2 requires replicated experiments (with no survivors) at the estimated lethal dose. We suggest a minimum sample size of 60 experimental units, which achieves 0.95 statistical reliability at the 95% confidence level. Step 3 entails studies under simulated operational conditions using wood samples similar in size to wood packaging material and infested to levels that reflect field conditions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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 it