Immunity, Sex and Parasites: Does Sex of Sand-Field Cricket (Gryllus firmus) Affect Immune Response to Eugregarine Parasites?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy about the effects gut-dwelling eugregarine parasites have on their invertebrate hosts. If crickets (Gryllus firmus) apportion resources to reproduction differently in males vs. females, then resources used to mount immune responses to parasites may also differ – especially if the parasites are pathogenic. I investigated the possible differences in immune response between male and female crickets and attempted to determine whether these differences are related to intensity of parasitic infection. To do this, pieces of nylon filament were implanted into the hemocoel of crickets which tested the immune response where hemocytes surround the filament (encapsulation). These responses were compared to intensity of parasitic infection. No statistically significant relationship between sex and melanisation, or sex and parasite load were found. I found that the duration of melanization was negatively correlated to parasite abundance and that there was a positive correlation between body size and parasite number. This result suggests the existence of a relationship between the parasite and host that could be conflicting with sexual selection theory, such as host manipulation by the parasite.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".