Monitoring and detection of the swede midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2002, two types of light traps were compared against sticky yellow cards for efficiency and selectivity in capturing adult swede midge Contarinia nasturtii (Kieffer) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Incandescent light traps were more efficient at capturing swede midge than were sticky traps. Incandescent light traps were more selective than blacklight traps and required less time for processing of samples and identification of captured midges. Emergence (2003 and 2004) and pheromone (2004) traps were used to assess swede midge population dynamics. Captures from emergence traps indicate up to five overlapping emergence events for swede midge each year. Emergence traps captured swede midge earlier in the season than pheromone traps, but pheromone-trap captures continued later in the season than those in emergence traps. Pheromone traps are small and portable, easy to maintain, and capture significantly more swede midge than emergence traps.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".