MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267201871 · doi:10.1093/jisesa/iev151

A Review of the McMorran Diet for Rearing Lepidoptera Species With Addition of a Further 39 Species

2016· review· en· W2267201871 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Hervet, Robert A. Laird, Kevin D. Floate

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLepidoptera genitaliaNoctuidaeCutwormZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on cutworms led us to explore the use of the McMorran diet to rear lepidopteran species, mainly Noctuidae, under laboratory conditions. We documented the development of 103 lepidopteran species, including 39 species not previously reported in the literature, to be reared on this diet. Given its low cost, ease of preparation, and wide species’ acceptance, this diet provides a powerful tool for facilitating Lepidoptera and other insects rearing and research in the laboratory. Résumé Une recherche sur les noctuelles nous a permis d’élever des larves de nombreuses espèces de lépidoptères, principalement des noctuelles, sur un substrat artificiel du nom de «McMorran diet» en laboratoire. Nous reportons le développement de 103 espèces de lépidoptères, dont 39 espèces qui n’ont pas encore été documentées, comme pouvant se développer sur ce substrat artificiel. Étant donné son faible coût, facilité de préparation, et large champ d’action, ce substrat artificiel peut grandement faciliter la recherche sur les lépidoptères et autres insectes en laboratoire.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Insect ScienceSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207