MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403287993 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.08.617250

Growth, development, and life history of a mass-reared edible insect, <i>Gryllodes sigillatus</i> (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

2024· preprint· en· W4403287993 on OpenAlexaff
Jacinta D. Kong, Marshall W. Ritchie, Émile Vadboncoeur, Heath A. MacMillan, Susan M. Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopteraInsectBiologyZoologyLife historyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Insects provide a potential source of sustainable, alternative protein that can help meet the protein demands of a growing population. Efficient farming of insects to meet this demand depends on an understanding of insect life history. Yet, detailed information and expertise about a single species are not always available for practitioners to make informed decisions about rearing practices or identify arising issues. The cricket ( Gryllodes sigillatus ) is commonly farmed for human consumption or animal feed, but few studies have characterized the life history of this species throughout ontogeny. Here, we describe the growth and development of G. sigillatus from hatch to adulthood and quantify reproductive traits relevant to mass-rearing and colony management, including egg development. This information provides foundation to start and manage a cricket colony and to conduct research on growth and performance. We highlight ways that a fundamental understanding of cricket biology can be informative for optimizing cricket growth, reducing variability in yield and informing future precision farming practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207