The Nocturnal Oviposition Behavior of Carrion Flies in Rural and Urban Environments: Methodological Problems and Forensic Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTUnequivocal identification of the time at which larvae are deposited upon a carcass is essential for applying maggots as estimators of the post-mortem interval of that carcass. However, there is controversy as to whether flies oviposit at night or not. Nocturnal exposure of rat carcasses at three sites in the Cincinnati metropolitan region was used to examine this behavior for two field seasons, 2005 and 2006. In the 2005 field season, nocturnally exposed bait rats were observed to harbor live larvae following a maturation period, but all of the positive results were discovered to have resulted from post-exposure contamination. In the 2006 field season several methods were changed to correct for contamination and in that field season, nocturnal ovipositing was not found to occur.RÉSUMÉL'identification non-équivoque du temps où des larves sont déposées sur une carcasse est essentiel pour appliquer des asticots comme estimateurs de l'interval post-mortem de cette carcasse. Cependant, le fait que les mouches déposent des œufs ou non pendant la nuit est controversé. L'exposition nocturne de carcasses de rats à trois sites dans la région du Cincinnati métropolitain a été utilisée afin d'examiner ce comportement lors de deux saisons, soit 2005 et 2006. Au cours de la saison 2005, on a observé sur les rats exposés de nuit, des larves vivantes après la période de maturation mais on a découvert que tous les résultats positifs étaient dûs à une contamination ayant eue lieu après l'exposition. Pour la saison 2006, quelques méthodes ont été changées afin d'éviter la contamination et, dans cette saison, le dépôt d'œufs nocturne ne s'est pas produit.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".