Studying the “fly factor” phenomenon and its underlying mechanisms in house flies <i>Musca domestica</i>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The “fly factor” was first discovered >60 years ago and describes the phenomenon that food currently or previously fed on by flies attracts more foraging flies than the same type and amount of food kept inaccessible to flies. Since then, there has been little progress made to understanding this phenomenon. Our objectives were (i) to demonstrate the existence of the fly factor in house flies, Musca domestica and (ii) to study underlying mechanisms that may cause or contribute to the fly factor. In 2‐choice laboratory bioassays, we obtained unambiguous evidence for a fly factor phenomenon in house flies, in that we demonstrated that feeding flies are more attractive to foraging flies than are nonfeeding flies, and that fed‐on food is more attractive to foraging flies than is “clean” food. Of the potential mechanisms (fly excreta, metabolic output parameters [elevated temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide]), causing the fly factor, fly feces, and regurgitate do attract foraging flies but none of the metabolic output parameters of feeding flies does. Even though feeding flies produce significantly more CO 2 than nonfeeding flies, elevated levels of CO 2 have no behavior‐modifying effect on flies. Preferential attraction of house flies to fly feces and regurgitate indicates that the flies sense airborne semiochemicals emanating from these sources. Hypothesizing that these semiochemicals are microbe‐produced, future studies will aim at isolating and mass producing these microbes to accumulate semiochemicals for identification.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it