Identification and Oviposition Response of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Dryophthorinae) on Various Food Grains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study weevils were collected from the local areas of Tandojam and its surroundings. While further identification was performed at the Laboratory of postgraduate student, | department of Entomology, Faculty of Crop Protection, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. The collected weevils from the local areas of Tandojam, were killed in a jar by applying potassium cyanide and were mounted through entomological pins on their right elytron. The specimens were also labeled, which contains information about the date of collection, name of collector, host of plant if was known. After that abdomen were separated and put at 10% potassium hydroxide for overnight at room temperature separately and were heavily sclerotized. The specimens were also heated for 10 minutes. In the next day these specimen were rushed in water for 5 minutes. During this experiment habitus images were taken with the help of camera fitted in microscope. The examination of gentile and other remaining parts were performed under the microscope for capturing of necessary images. For habitus images model of camera canon Power shot (sx510 HS) were utilized and for the gentile organ images USB camera fitted microscope 350k pixel (1) Kyowa Medilux (2) Labomed CSM2 20 to 40x were used. For the oviposition response on various grains, tested grains include; wheat, barley, oat, maize, gram, millet. A pair of newly emerged Sitophilus oryzae (Fabricius, 1775) from a laboratory colony was placed in plastic jars of 150 ml. There were 6 treatments, each treatment with 3 replications. Eggs were counted in each jar containing pair of weevils. Analysis was carried out through statistical software SXW 8.0, to categorize the preference of Sitophilus oryzae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".