MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of dyes for marking painted apple moths (<i>Teia anartoides</i> Walker, Lep. Lymantriidae) used in a sterile insect release program

2008· article· en· W2130706241 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Stephens, A. M. Barrington, Vicky A Bush, Nadine M Fletcher, Vanessa J Mitchell, D. M. Suckling

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyLarvaInsectSterile insect techniquePheromoneHorticultureZoologyBotanyToxicologyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two methods of marking painted apple moth (Teia anartoides Walker, Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), internal and external dyes, were investigated for use with the sterile insect technique, to ensure that wild and released moths could be distinguished absolutely during the eradication program. Calco Red dye was used to mark all moths internally. It was added to artificial diet and was detectable in the adults. Dye was incorporated into the larval diet at four rates. No differences were observed in mortality of the larvae, fertility of the adult female or response of male moths to virgin females in a flight tunnel. Fluorescent powder dyes were used throughout the sterile insect program to identify irradiated moths, as well as their release location and colony. However, the powdered dyes reduced the ability of male moths to detect a component of the sex pheromone in electro‐antennogram tests and to respond to a calling virgin female in flight tunnel trials. Field trials suggest that moths may subsequently overcome these negative effects and respond to female moths, as moths heavily coated in dye were recaptured.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of EntomologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207