MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598210884 · doi:10.3390/insects8020034

Spectral Signatures of Immature Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

2017· article· en· W2598210884 on OpenAlexaff
Jodie-A. Warren, T. D. Pulindu Ratnasekera, David A. Campbell, Gail S. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuciliaInstarBiologyHyperspectral imagingCalliphoridaeLarvaReflectivityPupaZoologyEcologyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperspectral remote sensing is an innovative technology with applications in many sciences and is a non-destructive method that may offer more precise aging within development stages. Hyperspectral reflectance measurements from the anterior, midsection, and posterior of Lucilia sericata (Meigen) larvae and pupae were conducted daily from samples of the developing insects beginning at second instar. Only midsection measurements were conducted on second instar larvae due to their size, to ensure that the measurement was not of reflective surroundings. Once measured, all insects were washed with deionized water, blotted with filter paper, and re-measured. Daily age prediction during the post-feeding stage was not impacted by the unwashed insect measurements and was best predicted based on posterior measurements. The second and third instar larvae, which move about their food source, had different contributing coefficients to the functional regression model for the hyperspectral measurements of the washed compared with unwashed specimens. Although washing did not affect the daily prediction within these stages, it is still encouraged in order to decrease the effect of food source on spectral reflectance. Days within the intra-puparial period were best predicted based on anterior measurements and were not well distinguished from one another in the first few days based on midsection and posterior measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207