Arthropod Surveillance Programs: Basic Components, Strategies and Analysis
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 Effective entomological surveillance planning stresses a careful consideration of methodology, trapping technologies, and analysis techniques. Herein, the basic principles and technological components of arthropod surveillance plans are described, as promoted in the symposium “Advancements in arthropod monitoring technology, techniques, and analysis” presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America in San Diego, CA. Interdisciplinary examples of arthropod monitoring for urban, medical, and veterinary applications are reviewed. Arthropod surveillance consists of the three components: 1) sampling method, 2) trap technology, and 3) analysis technique. A sampling method consists of selecting the best device or collection technique for a specific location and sampling at the proper spatial distribution, optimal duration, and frequency to achieve the surveillance objective. Optimized sampling methods are discussed for several mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) and ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). The advantages and limitations of novel terrestrial and aerial insect traps, artificial pheromones and kairomones are presented for the capture of red flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), small hive beetle (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), bed bugs (Hemiptera: Cimicidae), and Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) respectively. After sampling, extrapolating real world population numbers from trap capture data are possible with the appropriate analysis techniques. Examples of this extrapolation and action thresholds are given for termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) and red flour beetles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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