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