Postovulation parental investment and parental care in cockroaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cockroaches show the entire range of reproductive modes: oviparous, ovoviviparous, viviparous, and intermediate stages. Postparturition parental care is likewise diverse, ranging from species in which females remain with neonates for a few hours, to biparental care that lasts several years and includes feeding the offspring on bodily fluids in a nest. Both ovoviviparity and parental care arose a number of times in the taxon. Evolution of reproductive mode seems most influenced by predators, parasites and cannibalism. Ovoviviparity, aggregation behavior of young nymphs, and diet are suggested as factors influential in the evolution of postparturition parental care. Females regulate parental investment via absorption of oocytes, abortion, cannibalism and brood reduction. The developmental status of cockroaches at hatching ranges along an altricial–precocial spectrum and is correlated with the presence and type of parental care. In several subsocial species neonates are blind, poorly sclerotized, and dependent for food, while in the sole viviparous cockroach nymphs hatch in an advanced state of development and require fewer molts to adulthood than any known cockroach. Association with microorganisms in both the digestive system and the fat body is suggested as one factor influential in the repro – ductive versatility of cockroaches. In particular, the endosymbiont flavobacteria which mediate the storage and recycling of nitrogenous waste products may allow for the variety of modes of postovulation provisioning of offspring.
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) | 0.002 | 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".