Does Counting Different Life Stages Impact Estimates for Extinction Probabilities for Tsetse (Glossina spp)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As insect populations decline, due to climate change and other environmental disruptions, there has been an increased interest in understanding extinction probabilities. Generally, the life cycle of insects occurs in well-defined stages: when counting insects, questions naturally arise about which life stage to count. Using tsetse flies (vectors of trypanosomiasis) as a case study, we develop a model that works when different life stages are counted. Previous branching process models for tsetse populations only explicitly represent newly emerged adult female tsetse and use that subpopulation to keep track of population growth/decline. Here, we directly model other life stages. We analyse reproduction numbers and extinction probabilities and show that several previous models used for estimating extinction probabilities for tsetse populations are special cases of the current model. We confirm that the reproduction number is the same regardless of which life stage is counted, and show how the extinction probability depends on which life stage we start from. We demonstrate, and provide a biological explanation for, a simple relationship between extinction probabilities for the different life stages, based on the probability of recruitment between stages. These results offer insights into insect population dynamics and provide tools that will help with more detailed models of tsetse populations. Population dynamics studies of insects should be clear about life stages and counting points.
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 | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".