MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence for male‐ and juvenile‐specific contact pheromones of the common bed bug <i>Cimex lectularius</i>

2007· article· en· W2166070249 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCimex lectulariusBed bugBiologySex pheromonePheromoneZoologyJuvenileHeteropteraEcologyHemiptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Males and females of the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius L. (Heteroptera: Cimicidae), have been shown to produce and respond to an aggregation pheromone. We tested whether juvenile C. lectularius also produce and respond to aggregation pheromone, and whether the pheromone is perceived by contact chemoreception. In dual‐choice laboratory experiments, juveniles, but not males or females, preferred juvenile‐exposed paper discs to control discs. Unlike juveniles, males and females preferred male‐exposed paper discs to control discs. Neither juveniles, males, nor females preferred female‐exposed discs to control discs. When test stimuli were inaccessible, C. lectularius failed to show any preference. Male‐ and juvenile‐specific contact pheromones may have contrasting functions of marking shelters as safe refugia for development and growth (juveniles) or mate encounter (adults), but result in the same phenomenon, the aggregation of conspecifics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it