Human hosts recruit more host-seeking deer flies (Diptera: Tabanidae) while walking than sitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biting flies can strongly influence the behaviour of their hosts, for example, there is evidence that some species may avoid harassment by reducing their locomotory activity. We tested the hypothesis that potential hosts can reduce their attraction to deer flies by remaining stationary—that reducing locomotory movement reduces exposure to new deer flies compared to remaining still. During early summer in central Ontario, Canada, we conducted 20-min trials where a human host either walked or sat quietly; tabanids were captured and counted each minute using a hat outfitted with a sticky trap. During 10 trials in each treatment, we captured a total of 868 deer flies, all in the genus Chrysops; the total capture while walking was nearly five-fold greater than while sitting. During trials, the change in catch rate also differed with host activity. While the host was sitting, the mean rate of capture declined rapidly (−16% per min) to nearly zero by 20 min. In contrast, while the host was walking, this decline was much more gradual (−5% per min); after 20 min, the catch rate remained nearly constant, at roughly half the initial rate. These results are consistent with the hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".