Comparison of Sample Units for Estimating Population Abundance and Rates of Change of Adult Horn Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the reliability of population estimates of adult horn fly, Haematobia irritans (L.), obtained using different sample units. Mean-variance relationships were similar for abundance estimates obtained by counting flies on the sunny sides of cattle, on the upper body, and on the whole animal. Precision varied among the sample units, and was lowest for estimates obtained using the sunny side. Abundance estimates obtained using the sunny side and upper body sample units were related to estimates obtained using the whole body sample unit. However, the proportion of flies in the upper body and sunny side sample units declined with increasing fly density. Seasonal movement toward the belly accounted for this decline. This movement resulted in bias in estimating rates of change based on counting flies on the sunny side and upper body sample units. Rates of change based on sampling the sunny side were more biased than estimates based on the upper body sampling unit. Bias in estimating rates of change was examined using an analytical model compared with field data, and resulted from changes in the proportion of flies occupying the sample unit. Bias also increased with increasing actual rates of change. The implication of these findings for studying horn fly populations are discussed.
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 | 0.021 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".