MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111897113 · doi:10.1556/aphyt.37.2002.1-3.24

Examination of female proportion of light trapped turnip moth (Scotia segetum Schiff.)

2002· article· en· W2111897113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Máté Kiss, L. Nowinszky, J. Puskás

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDemographyNova scotiaToxicologyStatisticsAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The change of the number of turnip moth (Scotia segetum Schiff.) females was examined at 65 different light trap stations between 1957 and 1990. There are two generations of the examined species in Hungary, but the indi­vi­dual number of the first generation is low year by year, so we process­ed only the data of the second generation. Only those generations were examined that had more than 100 samples because of the statistical reliability. Thirty-three light trap stations were suitable for this examination. The joint number of yearly caught male and female individuals and also separately the samples of females were summarised for each observing station. The change of female individual number as a function of total individual number was determined from the coherent pairs of value. The connection can be described by linear function. The proportion of females is 38%. The relative frequency of females was also determined in the function of the individual number. The shown point-mass is similar to the damped vibration known at technical systems. It was established that the female proportion was higher than the average if the individual number is low, but it showed average value when the individual number was high. It can also be established that the female proportion is significantly high in some cases before gradation years.

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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Phytopathologica et Entomologica HungaricaSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207