MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995998784 · doi:10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59

Seeing is Believing, A Fourteen-Year Study on Efficacy and Economics of Visual Inspections to Protect A Large Mammal Collection from Insect Pests

2018· article· en· W2995998784 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Forum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEST analysisIntegrated pest managementDermestidaeToxicologyGeographyEcologyBiologyLarvaHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In response to the cessation of use of in-case fumigants, from 1995–2009 the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History's Division of Mammals (DOM) applied a consistent voluntary visual inspection protocol over a period of 14 years. On average, per-case inspections required about 7 minutes. Inspections categorized case pest activity as clean, soiled, signs of life, and live insects. These categories compartmentalized levels of uncertainty about pest activity and directly led to remedial treatment and cleaning actions performed at a case level. Evidence of recurrent reinfestation led to case renovation or replacement. In order for an integrated pest management (IPM) method to be successful, it has to demonstrate a predatory efficacy better than the replacement and recruitment rates of the pests. With at most 1.5% of staff time devoted to IPM, case infestations of Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky 1839) Coleoptera: Dermestidae and Necrobia rufipes (De Geer 1775) Coleoptera: Cleridae were lowered to near zero within 3 years. Rebound toward initial rates occurred after a forced 3-year hiatus in inspections and was similarly dealt with by a following round of inspections. The hourly investment of time is comparable with that of previous case repellant or fumigation regimes, but without the aggregated loss of access to collections during enclosure and out-gassing of fumigant, thus allowing longer and safer access to collections over a year, and instilling greater knowledge of specimen condition across the collection regardless of current research focus. The study also includes an economic comparison to historical methods of case level pest suppression with fumigants against two other comparably large collections documented within the last half century.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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