MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404013366 · doi:10.1163/23524588-00001347

Make it a standard? The creation and variability assessment of a consensus standard protocol for Tenebrio molitor larvae feeding trials

2024· article· en· W4404013366 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insects as Food and Feed · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsProtocol (science)LarvaBiologyMedicineEcologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Interest in the nutrition of the yellow mealworm ( Tenebrio molitor L.) larvae is on the rise, leading to an increase in publications on this topic. The absence of a standard protocol and resulting differences in experimental designs reduces comparability among studies and impedes research on mealworm nutrition. To address this, a consensus standardised protocol was developed specifically for the evaluation of mealworm larval growth and performance in feeding trials. The efficacy of this protocol was evaluated through an international ring test involving seven partners using two wheat brans as dry feed (a standard bran and a local bran) at 27 °C and 60% relative humidity. As experimental units, plastic crates filled with 2.1 kg of bran and 10,000 4-week-old larvae were used with six replicates. Agar gel was provided as wet feed ad libitum . The mean individual larval weight and the number of larvae per crate were determined weekly until either three or more replicates ran out of feed or pupation exceeded 10%. At harvest, the total larval fresh biomass and amount of frass was determined. Larval samples were taken for chemical analysis. To assess the protocol, the within (repeatability) and between (reproducibility) laboratory variability was calculated for each parameter. The repeatability was good (limit at 12% (standard) and 14% (local)). The reproducibility was poorer with a limit 2.7 times higher for the standard feed (36%) and 3.8 times higher for the local feed (55%). For both feeds, the total larval fresh harvest, amount of frass and the larval protein concentration were the most consistent both within and among laboratories. The highest variability was observed at the early life stages and for the larvae ash content. The detailed consensus standard protocol and repeatability/reproducibility estimates can be used as basis for future mealworm feeding trials, comparing results and future improvements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.309 · 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