The role of resource availability and state-dependence in the foraging strategy of blood-feeding mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Blood-feeding female mosquitoes are omnivores that face trade-offs and constraints between taking blood meals, sugar meals, and ovipositing their eggs. Questions: (1) How does a mosquito allocate her time and energy to blood and sugar feeding? (2) How does the availability of sugar and/or blood influence her decisions? Methods and key assumptions: We use a dynamic state variable model to address this question. The model is parameterized from primary literature using Anopheles gambiae for reference where possible. The model assumes that female mosquitoes have evolved to make decisions that maximize their lifetime reproductive success. Conclusions: Blood and sugar have important roles in the life history of blood-feeding female mosquitoes. In the presence of blood hosts, the decision to search for a blood meal is almost always chosen over the search for sugar. However, away from the blood host microhabitat, sugar is readily used. Survivorship and fecundity are increased with an increase in sugar availability. Frequency of blood feeding, mosquito fecundity, and survivorship are only marginally decreased with decreases in blood availability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".