An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Mosquito Magnet Pro Model for Suppression of Nuisance Mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the effectiveness of the American Biophysics Corporation Mosquito Magnet Pro Model (ABC-PRO) to reduce mosquito abundance in an urban (Wolseley) and in a rural (Fort Whyte) setting in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 2001 and 2002. Assessment was based on comparisons with control sites by using Centers for Disease Control (CDC) light traps and landing counts on human observers. Over a period of 94 trap nights, the ABC-PRO collected more than an estimated 2,000,000 mosquitoes of 6 species. Aedes vexans dominated trap catches in both years. Ochlerotatus sticticus was the 2nd most abundant species at the rural site in 2001, and Coquillettidia perturbans was the 2nd most abundant species in the urban site in 2002. When consideration was made for the confounding effects of wind speed and temperature, there were no significant differences in landing counts at Fort Whyte in either year, although CDC trap catches were significantly greater in the ABC-PRO location in 2001. In Wolseley, there were no significant differences in CDC trap catches in either year, although landing counts at the ABC-PRO site were significantly higher in 2002. We could not demonstrate that continuous operation of the ABC-PRO in these 2 locations in Winnipeg significantly reduced mosquito activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".