Efficiency of six different octenol‐baited traps for collecting horseflies (Diptera: Tabanidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency and the potential species preference for six different horsefly trap types was studied. A total of 2401 horseflies were collected during this study. The most effective trap was the modified box trap with (27.9%), followed by the Nzi trap with (24.5%), Malaise trap (Townes design 1972) with (22.5)%, canopy trap with (17.9%), modified small canopy trap with (7.0%) and Malaise trap (Townes design 1962) with (0.2%). The Nzi and Malaise trap (Townes design 1972) did not differ significantly in the number of collected horseflies. The comparison of all other traps revealed significant differences in the number of collected horseflies. Tabanus bromius was the most abundant species with (58.6%) of the collected sample. The modified box trap was the most successful in collecting of T. bromius, while the Malaise trap (Townes design 1972) was the most successful in collecting the species Haematopota pluvialis, T. maculicornis and T. tergestinus. This study demonstrated that different trap designs influenced the quantity, species and taxonomic diversity of horseflies that were collected. Variables in the trap design included cloth type and colour and size and shape of trap. More detailed studies should be done to determine which factor or factors are most significant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".