Behavioural responses of diverse insect groups to electric stimuli
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
Abstract Anecdotal evidence suggests that cockroaches respond to electrical appliances or outlets. Our objectives were to determine the effect of field‐inducing sources and field attributes on attraction of G erman cockroaches, B lattella germanica ( L .) ( B lattodea: B lattellidae), and to test those parameters found effective for attraction of B . germanica for attraction of other groups of insects. In two‐choice, large‐arena experiments, significantly more female, but not nymphal, B . germanica settled in or near electrified coils with static or fluctuating electromagnetic fields produced by low‐level direct current ( DC ) or alternating current ( AC ) sources than in control coils without current. Electromagnetic fields with the magnetic, but not the electric, component of the field nulled still attracted B . germanica , suggesting that the electric component of the field may contribute to the attraction or arrestment response of B . germanica . DC ‐powered coils with static electromagnetic fields also attracted/arrested brown‐banded cockroaches, S upella longipalpa ( F abricius) ( B lattodea: B lattellidae), common silverfish, L episma saccharina ( L .), firebrats, T hermobia domestica ( P ackard) (both T hysanura: L epismatidae), and E uropean earwigs, F orficula auricularia ( L .) ( D ermaptera: F orficulidae), but they repelled A merican cockroaches, P eriplaneta americana ( L .) ( B lattodea: B lattidae). If proven in field experiments, electrified coils as trap baits may offer non‐toxic alternatives to pesticides for selective insect control in urban environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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