Granary Trial of Protein-Enriched Pea Flour for the Control of Three Stored-Product Insects in Barley
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A granary trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of protein-enriched pea flour against three common stored-grain insects, Sitophilus oryzae (L.), Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), and Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens). Six 30-t farm granaries were filled with ≈11 t of barley. The barley was either not treated, treated with protein-enriched pea flour at 0.1% throughout the entire grain mass, or treated at 0.5% throughout the top half of the grain mass. Adult insects were released in screened boxes (two insects per kilogram barley for S. oryzae and T. castaneum; 1.4 insects per kilogram barley for C. ferrugineus). Barley was sampled four times during the 70-d trial. The number and mortality of adults and emerged adults in the samples were noted. Four kinds of traps, flight, surface-pitfall, probe-pitfall, and sticky-bar, were placed at different locations in the granaries to estimate the movement of insects. The 0.1% protein-enriched pea flour treatment reduced adult numbers of S. oryzae by 93%, T. castaneum by 66%, and C. ferrugineus by 58%, and reduced the emerged adults by 87, 77, and 77%, respectively. Treating the top half of the barley with 0.5% protein-enriched pea flour had similar effects as treating the entire grain mass with 0.1% pea-protein flour. However, the top-half treatment failed to prevent insects from penetrating into the untreated lower layer. Differences between traps are 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it