MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010131716 · doi:10.3109/01677060009084498

Isolation of Larval Behavioral Mutants in<i>Drosophila Melanogaster</i>

2000· article· he· W2010131716 on OpenAlexaff
Susan A. Shaver, Craig A.L. Riedl, Tony L. Parkes, Marla B. Sokolowski, Arthur J. Hilliker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurogenetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrosophila melanogasterBiologyForagingLocus (genetics)LarvaMutantGeneticsDrosophila (subgenus)InsectPhenotypeMelanogasterGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic loci that influence behavior are often difficult to identify and localize in part due to the quantitative nature of behavioral phenotypes. Previous studies had found an association between pupal lethality and altered larval behavior for mutants of several genes. To facilitate the identification and localization of new mutants that influence larval foraging (movement in the presence of food) and general locomotion (movement in the absence of food) behaviors we identified and then screened a collection of strains carrying pupal-lethal mutations for alterations in these larval behaviors. When the lethal mutation segregated with the behavioral alteration this permitted the mapping of the behavioral locus. Nine new loci on the second chromosome were found to affect larval behavior. Of these, seven loci affected foraging and two affected locomotion. Analyses of these new loci will lead to further understanding of the mechanistic bases of larval behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurogeneticsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207