Measuring Oviposition Preference in<i>Aedes aegypti</i>Mosquitoes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The female mosquito is endowed with the responsibility of gene transfer from one generation to another through careful delivery of her eggs to an appropriate environment. To guarantee a successful reproduction process, female mosquitoes use an evaluative approach to select an oviposition site that will ensure that their progeny successfully hatch and develop from larvae to pupa to adult. Specific conditions must be met during oviposition site selection before gravid females deposit eggs, including but not limited to appropriate temperature, salinity, and pH; the presence of nutrition; and a low risk of predation. Mosquito species exhibit a remarkable diversity in their oviposition site selection behaviors. For instance, Aedes aegypti , which is a vector for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya viruses, prefers to lay its eggs in natural depressions (e.g., tree holes) or artificial containers. In contrast, other mosquito species, like Anopheles , gravitate toward more open water bodies. Understanding the oviposition preference behavior of the Ae. aegypti mosquito will facilitate the development of surveillance and control efforts to hinder the successful progression of this vector. Here, we present information on some of the known behaviors and preferences of Ae. aegypti during oviposition site selection, techniques to measure these preferences, and some open questions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it