Pattern of Human-biting Activity of <i>Aedes aegypti </i>L. and<i> Aedes albopictus</i> Skuse in a Garden Locale from City of Kolkata, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a yearlong study, centering a garden in Kolkata possible competitive displacement of populations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus was suggested (Gilotra et al., 1967). After about 20 years, a comparative 24 h man-biting activity of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus mosquitoes was investigated in the same garden from September 1986 to August 1987. During day light hours, altogether 248 Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were collected off human baits, of which 77 (31.04%) and 171 (68.95%) off indoor and outdoor baits respectively. The corresponding figures for Ae. albopictus were 867 [183 (21.10%) at indoors and 684 (78.89%) at outdoors]. Both species of mosquitoes were found to be attracted to human baits both at indoor and outdoor, throughout the day, with the peak hour of biting activity of Ae. aegypti between 8 and 9 a.m. [60 (24.19%)]followed by another peak during 5-6 p.m. [40 (16.13%)]. Peak activity of Ae. albopictus was observed between 5 and 6 p.m. (135 i.e. 15.5%). For both the species the peak biting activity was found in the month of July [ Ae. aegypti , 52 (20.96%) and Ae. albopictus , 264 (30.4%)]. Altogether 36 and 13 Ae. aegypti were caught off man-baits at indoors and outdoors respectively beyond day light hours and the corresponding figures for Ae. albopictus were 56 and 34 respectively. This infers a possible competitive displacement of Ae. aegypti populations by the populations of Ae. albopictus.
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 | 0.001 | 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".