Using Sterile Gypsy Moth Eggs As a Survey and Experimental Tool in the Field: A Comparison of Hatching Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three hundred eighty-two freshly oviposited gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), egg masses from two laboratory strains (fertile and F1-sterile) and one wild strain were subjected to seven temperature regimes. Egg hatch was monitored daily in each egg mass until egg hatch was completed. The hatch pattern of each strain in each temperature regime was described by a cumulative distribution of percentage of total egg hatch, and distributions were compared statistically. Egg hatch distributions differed significantly in all but three of the 21 comparisons. However, cumulative egg hatch milestones of 5, 50, and 95% were reached by the F1-sterile egg masses <1, 2, and 4 d later, respectively, than either the laboratory fertile or wild strains. These differences are small relative to the ≈8 mo spent in the egg stage, and they should not invalidate the use of F1-sterile egg masses as sentinel eggs where the risk of establishment with fertile eggs is deemed too great.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".