MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095112018 · doi:10.1093/jisesa/ieaa025

Sampling Considerations for Adult and Immature Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae)

2020· article· en· W3095112018 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicVector-Borne Animal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCeratopogonidaeSampling (signal processing)EcologyHabitatCulicoidesLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing sampling programs for Culicoides can be challenging due to variation in ecology and behavior of the numerous species as well as their broad distributions and habitats. In this paper, we emphasize the need to clearly define research goals to select appropriate sampling methods. This includes not just the choice of sampling device, but also choice of attractant, site, number of traps per site, the duration and frequency of sampling, and the number of traps per unit area. Animal-baited trapping using enclosure traps and direct animal aspiration is more labor-intensive but yields information on species attracted to specific hosts as well as their biting rates. Sampling immatures is discussed with respect to choosing collection sites in semiaquatic mud, soil, and rich organic habitats. Sorting and extracting larvae using emergence traps, flotation, and Berlese funnels is also discussed.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.204 · 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