Locomotion Induced by Spatial Restriction in Adult Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drosophila adults display an unwillingness to enter confined spaces but the behaviors induced by spatial restriction in Drosophila are largely unknown. We developed a protocol for high-throughput analysis of locomotion and characterized features of locomotion in a restricted space. We observed intense and persistent locomotion of flies in small circular arenas (diameter 1.27 cm), whereas locomotion was greatly reduced in large circular arenas (diameter 3.81 cm). The increased locomotion induced by spatial restriction was seen in male flies but not female flies, indicating sexual dimorphism of the response to spatial restriction. In large arenas, male flies increased locomotion in arenas previously occupied by male but not female individuals. In small arenas, such pre-conditioning had no effect on male flies, which showed intense and persistent locomotion similar to that seen in fresh arenas. During locomotion with spatial restriction, wildtype Canton-S males traveled slower and with less variation in speed than the mutant w1118 carrying a null allele of white gene. In addition, wildtype flies showed a stronger preference for the boundary than the mutant in small arenas. Genetic analysis with a series of crosses revealed that the white gene was not associated with the phenotype of boundary preference in wildtype flies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".