An investigative study on the effects of black fly (diptera: simuliidae) sugar meals on reproductive success and parasite transmission /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black flies are opportunistic sugar-feeders. They take sugar meals from Homopteran honeydew secretions or plant nectars, depending on availability. Homopteran honeydew secretions contain both simple and complex carbohydrates while plant nectars contain primarily simple carbohydrates. In order to determine whether honeydew secretions offer more energy than plant nectars to their insect visitors a study of wild-caught black flies was undertaken in Algonquin Provincial Park, Canada during the spring of 1 998 and 1 999. It was hypothesized that female black flies maintained on honeydew sugars will survive longer, produce more eggs and have a greater parasite vectoring potential than those maintained on artificial nectar or distilled water. Results demonstrated that: (1) host-seeking female Prosimulimfuscum/mixtum and Simulium venustum maintained on artificial honeydew did not survive longer than those maintained on artificial nectar when fed ad libitum; (2) fiiUy engorged S. venustum and Simulium rugglesi maintained on artificial honeydew did not produce more eggs than those maintained on artificial nectar when fed ad libitum; and (3) S. rugglesi did not have a greater vectoring potential of Leucocytozoon simondi when maintained on artificial honeydew as opposed to artificial nectar when fed ad libitum. However, all flies maintained on the two sugars (artificial honeydew and artificial nectar) survived longer, produce more eggs and had greater vectoring potential than those maintained on distilled water alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".