Bibliographic record
Abstract
JEB Fruit flies' waxy coating provides definite waterproofingIt doesn't take much to begin feeling dehydrated.Miss a couple of drinks on a hot day and you'll soon experience the effects.But tiny insects are particularly at risk, thanks to their relatively large surface areacompared with their tiny body massthrough which they can lose fluid.For protection, they are encased in a tough exoskeleton, which can help to reduce water loss.In addition, their surface is smeared with wax, which could also minimise the amount of water they lose.However, no one had ever checked whether this layer of wax actually offers protection from dehydration or even alters the amount of dehydration that an insect can withstand.To find out whether the wax coating provides waterproofing, Kamar Nayal, Joshua Krupp, Osama Abdalla and Joel Levine from the University of Toronto at Mississauga, Canada, painstakingly engineered special fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) that had lost the wax-producing cells and so were unable to produce the waxy coating.Then they tested how well 10.1242/jeb.249866
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".