Female German cockroaches join conspecific groups based on the incidence of auditory cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insects deciding whether to approach and join a group of conspecifics may utilize olfactory and auditory signals, or cues, from that group as indicators of its size or the suitability of its shelter. Here we show (1) that German cockroaches, Blattella germanica L. (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae), in groups wing‐fan; (2) that the incidence of wing‐fanning (WF) increases proportionately to group size; and (3) that gravid females utilize auditory cues associated with WF behaviour when they decide whether or not to enter a shelter. In binary choice arena bioassays, proportionately more gravid females avoided shelters associated with play‐back of high‐incidence male‐ or female‐produced WF sound, indicating a high‐density group of conspecifics, but sought shelters associated with play‐back of low‐incidence WF sound, indicating a low‐density group of conspecifics. These auditory cues seem to convey information on group size or density, avoid sensory fatigue in enclosed environments, and allow sonotactic orientation to the group's location.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".