Sampling procedures and adult sex ratios in spruce budworm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unbiased estimates of sex ratios that reflect local abundance of adult insects are practically difficult to obtain because many gender‐specific behavioural adaptations differentially influence the catchability of males and females in commonly applied sampling procedures. Historic data on outbreak populations of spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), the major pest of conifers in Nearctic boreal forests, include dozens of sex ratio observations for 10 different sampling procedures; these data illustrate the importance of understanding the reproductive ecology of adults to contextualize sex ratio assessments. Sex ratios of resident adults (assessed by rearing field‐collected pupae to adulthood or fogging host trees with insecticide) were not different from 1:1. Sex ratios of in‐flight adults collected using Malaise traps or light traps deployed in tree canopies were consistently male‐biased, which presumably reflects the higher level of flight activity for males relative to females. Sex ratios of moths captured outside the forest canopy (presumed migrants), in contrast, were consistently female‐biased, a trend which is expected because females seeking oviposition sites are more likely to undergo migration than are males. The sex ratio among adults that died from natural causes (collected on drop trays) was not distinguishable from 1:1. In pre‐outbreak (endemic) populations, sex ratios estimated by light trapping were much more strongly male‐biased than in outbreak populations. This surprising result should, however, be interpreted with caution because little is known of reproductive ecology in endemic budworm populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".