Deployment and Fact Analysis of the In2Care® Mosquito Trap, A Novel Tool for Controlling Invasive Aedes Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During April-October 2019, the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (Ontario, CA) deployed large numbers of In2Care® mosquito traps in a preliminary study to evaluate the trap's potential effectiveness at controlling invasive Aedes aegypti (L.) and Ae. albopictus (Skuse) in 6 cities of San Bernardino County, CA. The trap was used to attract ovipositing females, expose them to the juvenile hormone mimic pyriproxyfen and the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana, and autodisseminate pyriproxyfen to other water sources prior to their death from fungal infection. The trap attracted Ae. aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus, with the latter species predominating at much higher larval densities in the trap reservoirs. Field-collected larvae and pupae from the trap reservoirs showed complete adult emergence inhibition. Furthermore, the trap reservoirs retained high levels of residual larvicidal, pupicidal, and emergence inhibition activity after they were retrieved from the field, as indicated by laboratory bioassays against laboratory colony of Cx. quinquefasciatus. Results of this study support more detailed quantitative local evaluations on trap efficacy to measure the impact of the In2Care mosquito trap on wild invasive Aedes and Culex populations in future mosquito control efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".