Conspecific and heterospecific cueing in shelter choices of <i>Blaptica dubia</i> cockroaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Like many cockroaches, Argentinian wood roaches, Blaptica dubia, prefer darker shelters over lighter shelters. In three experiments, we asked whether chemical cues from other roaches might influence shelter choice, a process known as conspecific or heterospecific cueing, depending on whether the cues come from an individual of the same or a different species, respectively. Methods Each experiment involved trials with focal B. dubia cockroaches in testing arenas containing plastic shelters of varying levels of darkness, with filter paper under each shelter acting as a carrier for chemical cues. In Experiment 1, we tested female and male B. dubia cockroaches with two shelters matched for darkness but differing in cues (conspecific vs. none). The shelter with no cue contained a blank filter paper as a control. In Experiment 2 (conspecific cueing) and Experiment 3 (heterospecific cueing), we tested B. dubia cockroach choices for lighter or darker shelters with filter papers containing chemical cues of other roaches or no chemical cues. For the conspecific cueing study of Experiment 2, we used chemical cues from other B. dubia cockroaches. In contrast, for the heterospecific cueing study of Experiment 3, we used chemical cues from a different species, the death’s head cockroach, Blaberus craniifer. Results In Experiment 1, B. dubia cockroaches overwhelmingly preferred shelters with conspecific chemical cues over darkness-matched shelters without cues. In Experiments 2 and 3, they strongly preferred darker shelters, especially when chemical cues were present. Additionally, they were more likely to be under the lighter shelter when chemical cues were present there. These results reveal that the public information B. dubia cockroaches gain from chemical cues—including those from other species—can drive shelter choices in this species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".