Estimating tsetse fertility: daily averaging versus periodic larviposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When computing mean daily fertility in adult female tsetse, the common practice of taking the reciprocal of the interlarval period (called averaged fertility) was compared with the method of taking the sum of the products of daily fertility and adult survivorship divided by the sum of daily survivorships (called periodic fertility). The latter method yielded a consistently higher measure of fertility (approximately 10% for tsetse) than the former method. A conversion factor was calculated to convert averaged fertility to periodic fertility. A feasibility criterion was determined for the viability of a tsetse population. Fertility and survivorship data from tsetse populations on Antelope Is. and Redcliff Is., both in Zimbabwe, were used to illustrate the feasibility criterion, as well as the limitations imposed by survivorship and fertility on the viability of tsetse populations. The 10% difference in fertility between the two methods of calculation makes the computation of population feasibility with some parameter combinations sometimes result in a wrong answer. It also underestimates both sterile male release rates required to eradicate a pest population, as well as the speed of resurgence if an eradication attempt fails.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".