The Relationship Between Surface Area and Volume of Common Blow Fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Oviposition Sites and Carrion Body Mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) demonstrate site preferences when ovipositing on carrion. Preference for oviposition sites is believed to reflect the suitability of the site such that the most preferred locations provide offspring with the greatest chance of survival. A number of factors might influence female choice, including area available for oviposition. For species known to aggregate during oviposition, the surface area of oviposition sites may be a key factor in the decision-making process. Using ImageJ, the surface area or volume of eight common oviposition sites on 13 fetal pig (Sus scrofa domesticus L.) carcasses was measured. Regression analysis was used to determine if body mass could predict the area or volume available for oviposition. We observed significant positive relationships between size of oviposition sites and body mass for all eight oviposition sites. The strongest relationships were observed for the face (R2 = 0.86) and legs (R2 = 0.84). To test the predictive capacity of this relationship, a blind validation study was performed. Five pigs of various body masses were randomly selected, and the available space of the eight sites was estimated using the regression equations. The validation study confirmed that the regression equations for most oviposition sites demonstrated their predictive capacity based on 95% prediction intervals. This research provides a tool that can be used to correct for differences in oviposition site area or volume between carcasses of varying mass so that researchers may gain a greater understanding of the oviposition preferences and aggregation behaviors in future studies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".