Developing techniques for monitoring forest tent caterpillar populations using synthetic pheromones
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
Abstract To effectively monitor forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria Hübner (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae), populations using sex pheromone baited traps, we field-tested pheromone dispenser (lure) type, lure age, and trap design using ( Z,E )-5,7-dodecadienal:( Z,Z )-5,7-dodecadienal (100:1). Rubber septa lures, polyurethane lures, and two trap types [sticky-type pheromone traps (Wing Trap I) and bucket-type pheromone traps (Universal Moth trap)] were evaluated. Traps baited with polyurethane lures produced higher trap catches and lower zero-catch frequencies than did rubber septa traps. There was no detectable difference in trap catch among polyurethane lures aged 0–28 days. Wing traps reached a functional saturation point in outbreak M. disstria populations and caught fewer moths than Universal traps in nonoutbreak populations. A nonsaturating trap such as the Universal trap in conjunction with the polyurethane lure should be effective for monitoring M. disstria 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it