DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS, BODY SIZE, AND SUGAR-FEEDING HABITS OF TWO SPECIES OF <i>CHRYSOPS</i> (DIPTERA: TABANIDAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two deer fly species, Chrysops mitis Osten Sacken and Chrysops excitans Walker, were collected by sweep-netting around human bait on five collection dates in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Distribution patterns of the two species at two sites (abandoned airfield and Davies bog), in two habitats (open and forest edge), and at two times of day (morning and afternoon) are analysed. Chrysops excitans was more frequently collected than C. mitis. Regardless of site, both species are more common in the morning than the afternoon collections and both are more common in the open than the forest-edge habitats. Chrysops excitans was the larger species (based on wing length measurements) and its size was constant regardless of site, habitat, and time of day. In contrast, afternoon-collected C. mitis were larger than morning-collected flies at the Davies bog site. The crop contents of 241 flies were identified using thin-layer chromatography. Using melezitose and stachyose as honeydew-indicator sugars, the relative importance of homopteran honeydew and floral nectar as carbohydrate sources for these flies was determined. We found no significant differences among species, sites, habitats, or times of day. Overall, 52.8% of C. excitans and 51.1% of C. mitis had recently fed on homopteran-derived honeydew sugars, underscoring the importance of this carbohydrate source for the haematophagous Diptera.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".