MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948310743 · doi:10.1111/eea.12795

Comparison of pheromone trap design and lures for <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> in Togo and genetic characterization of moths caught

2019· article· en· W2948310743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsNoctuidaeBiologySpodopteraPheromone trapPheromoneLepidoptera genitaliaPEST analysisFall armywormPopulationTrap (plumbing)BotanyPhysicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a pest of grain and vegetable crops endemic to the Western Hemisphere that has recently become widespread in sub‐Saharan Africa and has appeared in India. An important tool for monitoring S. frugiperda in the USA is pheromone trapping, which would be of value for use with African populations. Field experiments were conducted in Togo (West Africa) to compare capture of male fall armyworm using three commercially available pheromone lures and three trap designs. The objectives were to identify optimum trap × lure combinations with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and cost. Almost 400 moths were captured during the experiment. Differences were found in the number of S. frugiperda moths captured in the various trap designs and with the three pheromone lures, and in the number of non‐target moths captured with each lure. The merits of each trap × lure combination are discussed with respect to use in Africa. A nearly equal number of COI‐ CS (161) and COI ‐RS (158) moths was captured with no differences found in COI marker proportions among traps or lures. However, the diagnostic rice strain marker Tpi was rarely found. Overall, the genetic characterization of the pheromone trap collections indicated a consistent distribution of genetic markers from 2016 to 2017, suggesting a population at or near equilibrium.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.301 · 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