A comparison of the feeding behaviour of tsetse and stable flies
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
In Zimbabwe, observations were made of the behaviour of individual stable flies (Stomoxys spp.) (Diptera: Muscidae) and tsetse (Glossina spp.) (Diptera: Glossinidae) feeding on cattle during the wet (Stomoxys and tsetse) and dry (tsetse only) seasons. For Stomoxys landing on adult cattle, only 27% took a full meal (mean feeding time = 147 s). Most Stomoxys left the host before completing their meal, largely due to disturbance by the host's defensive behaviour (24%, mean time = 59 s) or other flies (44%, 71 s). The probability of a Stomoxys leaving the host progressively increased with time. Simultaneous observations of tsetse showed that, compared to Stomoxys, their feeding success was lower (15%), feeding was interrupted earlier (33 s) and the time taken to complete a meal was shorter (109 s). Further studies of tsetse across different seasons and hosts showed that feeding success varied according to host age (adult = 7%; calf = 3%) and was negatively correlated with the frequency of host defensive behaviour and the relative abundance of non-biting Diptera. Disturbances were more often caused by host behaviour (69%) than other flies (31%) and the probability of tsetse leaving decreased with time on the host. Overall, these results suggest that tsetse and Stomoxys have different feeding strategies. In particular, tsetse appear to be more responsive to host defensive behaviour, which reduces their feeding success relative to Stomoxys. These behavioural differences are consistent with the respective life-history characteristics of Stomoxys and tsetse.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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