Urban and Rural Spatial Delineations in Blow Fly Species (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Across Canada: Implications for Forensic Entomology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blow fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larvae are commonly used in forensic cases to determine postmortem intervals using development rates and successional changes in community composition. Studies are conducted from different regions to provide these data. We wanted to know how widely applicable these data are. We examined whether urbanized landscapes have distinct urban blow fly communities or whether the community composition in urbanized areas is simply a variation of that found in the surrounding habitat or ecozone. Using liver baited traps, we sampled 7,272 flies from 32 sites across Canada and used mapping analysis to assess urban and rural landcover classifications, and compared urban and rural species abundance and composition. Blow fly species communities from urban areas across Canada were made up of similar species and differed from the communities found in nearby rural sites. Trapping at rural sites caught more blow flies compared with urban sites (mean flies/site 59.5 and 12.4). Of the 14 species caught, 8 were caught at urban sites, 61% of these being Cynomya cadaverina Robineau-Desvoidy, 14% Phormia regina Meigen, and 11% Lucilia sericata (Meigen). In rural sites, all 14 species were caught, 41% of specimens caught were P. regina, 21% C. cadaverina, 10% Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus), with only 4% L. sericata. These data suggest that regional studies are appropriate for forensic entomology applications in urban landscapes, given the similar trends across Canada, less so for wilderness or rural landscapes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".