Shifts in carpenter ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) management strategies with introduction of new management tools and application techniques.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carpenter ants are major structural pests in the United States, Canada, and Scandinavian countries. With the advent of non-repellent chemicals and more attractive baits, shifts have occurred in management strategies that include either perimeter sprays or baiting as the sole method for control. Four tools or techniques were investigated for efficacy in carpenter ant management. One laboratory study showed the transfer of Termidor® (fipronil) among colony members following exposure to a single ant that had died after exposure to a dry treated surface. Ants from this secondary exposure were transferred to a third colony where mortalities of 41% and 72% were observed. Laboratory colonies also were used to study transfer of fipronil (0.001%) found in Maxforce Carpenter Ant Bait Gel®. Toxic effects were transferred from the initially exposed colony through two successive transfers. After two weeks, 100% mortality occurred in the initial colony, 57% mortality after the first transfer, and 46% mortality after the second transfer. In a field study using perimeter spray applications as the sole method of management, 17 homes with infestations received a perimeter spray of Termidor® (fipronil), TalstarOne® (bifenthrin), or TempoUltra® (cyfluthrin). After treatments, ants were not observed at 100% of the fipronil treated sites, 83% of the bifenthrin treated sites, and 80% of the cyfluthrin treated sites. Another study compared applications of bifenthrin using a power sprayer and a compressed-air hand sprayer for the control of carpenter ants. Infestations were controlled with power spraying at 40% of the sites compared to control at 80% of the sites sprayed with a compressed-air hand sprayer. The latter method allowed more precise placement of a smaller amount of chemical.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".