MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997252514 · doi:10.1111/eea.12245

Bite or flight: the response of mosquitoes to disturbance while feeding on a defensive host

2014· article· en· W1997252514 on OpenAlexafffund
Janine N. Reid, Thomas S. Hoffmeister, Amber Gigi Hoi, Bernard D. Roitberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsBiologyBlood mealFecundityHost (biology)ZoologyMalariaMealEcologySensu strictoImmunologyDemographyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding the blood‐feeding behavior of A nopheles gambiae G iles sensu stricto ( D iptera: C ulicidae) is important to the control of this malaria vector. Whereas the mosquito's decision to initiate blood feeding under different physiological states is well‐studied, its decision to terminate a blood meal in the face of a defensive host has received little attention. In light of this, we assayed the response of females when disturbed during a blood meal, in a size‐energy state factorial experiment. We found that a mosquito's decision to abandon its host is dependent not only on its relative blood intake, but also on its size and energy state. In particular, mosquitoes are more likely to terminate feeding with increasing relative blood meal size, with the exception of small, high‐energy ones, on which they tend to continue feeding. Mosquitoes that have engaged in prediuresis also tend to abandon their host more readily than those that have not. We discuss our results with regards to the marginal returns in fitness (via fecundity) of continuing feeding for body size, energy state, and interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207