Cutworm species (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) feeding on grapevines in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, with notes on rearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Eighteen species of cutworm moths were collected as larvae feeding at night on grapevines, Vitis sp. L. (Vitaceae), in south-central British Columbia, Canada, during April and May from 2004 to 2008. Ten species belonged to two genera, Abagrotis Smith and Euxoa Hübner. Abagrotis orbis (Grote), A. nefascia (Smith), and A. reedi Buckett accounted for over 85% of cutworms reared to adulthood. Abagrotis orbis and A. reedi were found in all locations; the former accounted for nearly 90% of larvae collected from vineyards on warm sandy soils. Abagrotis nefascia was largely restricted to cooler sites with heavier soils. For laboratory-reared A. orbis, pupal mass was highest and sex ratios were approximately equal when larvae were reared either on a pinto bean-based diet prepared with the recommended amount of water or on a commercial black cutworm diet and 50% of the recommended water. Survival to adult eclosion was significantly higher on the black cutworm diet, but because this was thicker than the pinto bean-based diet it was impractical to use. To date, A. orbis, A. nefascia, and A. reedi have been laboratory-reared continuously on artificial diet for more than six generations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".