MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168808635 · doi:10.4039/n11-026

Sampling <i>Tribolium confusum</i> and <i>Tribolium castaneum</i> in mill and laboratory settings: differences between strains and species

2011· article· en· W2168808635 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen J. Hawkin, Dean M. Stanbridge, Paul G. Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRed flour beetleBiologyInfestationMillPheromoneToxicologyHorticultureLarvaBotanyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The efficacy of pitfall traps baited with pheromone and cereal oil in capturing Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val and T. castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) was low (trap catch) in mill and simulated warehouse settings. In a simulated warehouse experiment, strains of Tribolium Macleay recently taken from mills were caught 24% less often in traps than were laboratory strains, and T. confusum was caught 40% less often than T. castaneum . Both species were found together in all flour samples taken from a Canadian flour mill. A comparison of the species ratio in flour samples with that found in traps revealed that T. confusum was caught less often in traps than was T. castaneum . In flour, T. castaneum burrowed more than did T. confusum , and there were differences in burrowing behaviour between the four T. castaneum strains. Mills infested with T. confusum may have higher levels of infestation than was previously thought, indicating that further research into beetle behaviour in mills is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207