MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Mosquito Magnet Pro Model for Suppression of Nuisance Mosquitoes

2006· article· en· W2156122954 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Price Henderson, Richard Westwood, Terry D. Galloway

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Mosquito Control Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAedes vexansNuisanceBiologyTrap (plumbing)Mosquito controlAbundance (ecology)EcologyAedesVeterinary medicineMalariaEnvironmental scienceLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Mosquito Control AssociationSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207