A Protocol for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Butterflies in Live Exhibits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Butterfly species used for live exhibition differ in life span, encounter rate, behavior, and cost. By knowing which species are more cost-effective, exhibitors can customize their butterfly imports and purchase butterfly species that provide the best return on their investment. We used mark-recapture techniques to estimate mean life span and encounter rates for 39 butterfly species commonly purchased by exhibitors. In addition, the behavior of 29 species was quantified and characterized as suitable versus unsuitable by direct observation. The data were combined to calculate 1) the total number of days of suitable performance to be expected from a species, and 2) the cost per individual per day based on the number of expected suitable days. The most cost-effective butterfly relative to others in this study was Heliconius hecale F. (total suitable days, 33.4; cost per day, $0.05); the least cost-effective species was Doleschallia bisaltide Cramer (total suitable days, 0.1; cost per day, $13.15). By using this protocol, exhibitors can selectively incorporate more cost-effective species, save money on imports, and improve the visual appeal of their live exhibits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".