Performance of the Nzi and other traps for biting flies in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of Nzi traps for tabanids (Tabanus similis Macquart, T. quinquevittatus Wiedemann, Chrysops aberrans Philip, C. univittatus Macquart, C. cincticornis Walker, Hybomitra lasiophthalma (Macquart)), stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans Linnaeus) (Diptera: Muscidae) and mosquitoes (Aedes) (Diptera: Culicidae) was investigated at various sites in Canada (Ontario, Alberta) and USA (Iowa, Florida, Louisiana). Traps made from selected fabrics, insect nettings and hand-dyed blue cotton were compared to the African design to provide practical recommendations for temperate environments. Comparisons of substituted materials showed that trap performance was optimal only when traps were made from appropriate fabrics in the colours produced by either copper phthalocyanine (phthalogen blue), or its sulphonated forms (turquoise). Fabrics dyed with other blue chromophores were not as effective (anthraquinone, disazo, formazan, indanthrone, triphenodioxazine). An appropriate texture as well as an appropriate colour was critical for optimal performance. Smooth, shiny synthetic fabrics (polyester, nylon) and polyester blends reduced catches. Low catches occurred even for nominal phthalogen blue, but slightly-shiny, polyester fabrics in widespread use for tsetse. The most suitable retail fabric in place of phthalogen blue cotton was Sunbrella Pacific Blue acrylic awning/marine fabric. It was both attractive and durable, and had a matching colour-fast black. Nzi traps caught grossly similar numbers of biting flies as canopy, Vavoua, and Alsynite cylinder traps, but with differences in relative performance among species or locations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".