MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413099498 · doi:10.14351/0831-4985-29.1.61

Spend time now, save time later: IPM lessons learned from the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

2015· article· en· W2413099498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amanda N. Lawrence, Jennifer Strotman

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Forum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingCabinet (room)Natural historyTechnicianDocumentationAeronauticsEngineeringArchaeologyGeographyComputer scienceEcologyPolitical scienceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A case study involving a comprehensive inspection to discriminate between old and active pest infestations is described. Integrated pest management (IPM) processes within the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, Division of Mammals (DOM) are challenging because of the size and composition of the collection, the age of storage equipment, and a low staffing to specimen ratio. Each specimen cabinet was inspected by IPM technicians during a 6-week period in late 2012. Following that inspection, two members of the NMNH collections program technician team began a 9-week project to clean 5,925 incidents in the affected cabinets in DOM storage areas in the Natural History Building downtown. The results of this project show that cleaning up a pest infestation in any natural history collection can be done in a reasonable amount of time and will help ensure the preservation of collections in the future. Knowing that the collections have been fully inspected and cleaned will allow staff in the DOM to easily and rapidly address future IPM issues in a structured way. Such efforts facilitate future IPM inspections because evidence of any new pest activity is no longer at risk of being overlooked due to debris from past infestations.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollection ForumSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207