Behavioural responses of diverse insect groups to electric stimuli
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 German cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.) (Blattodea: Blattellidae), 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, Supella longipalpa (Fabricius) (Blattodea: Blattellidae), common silverfish, Lepisma saccharina (L.), firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard) (both Thysanura: Lepismatidae), and European earwigs, Forficula auricularia (L.) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), but they repelled American cockroaches, Periplaneta americana (L.) (Blattodea: Blattidae). 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".