Data and code associated with: Conspecific cueing or cooperative feeding? – Foraging stable flies are visually attracted to conspecific flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset is a supplement to the article "Conspecific cueing or cooperative feeding? – Foraging stable flies are visually attracted to conspecific flies". The study used laboratory two-choice behavioural bioassays to investigate the responses of foraging stable flies to landing sites with and without conspecific flies, heterospecific flies, or artificial fly decoys present. Article Abstract: "Stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans, blood-feed daily on livestock hosts. The presence of conspecific flies on host animals may signify host suitability (‘conspecific cueing’) or may signal density-dependent feeding benefits (‘Allee effects’). However, stable flies captured on sticky traps reportedly render traps less attractive to conspecifics. We investigated whether this deterrent effect is context-dependent, and whether host-foraging stable flies are attracted to, rather than deterred by, conspecifics. In two-choice laboratory bioassays, we offered food-deprived, CO2-stimulated stable flies a choice between paired landing platforms that were baited or not (control) with conspecific flies (‘bait flies’). The presence of bait flies – irrespective of their abundance, sex, or relative position on the platform – prompted attraction and landing of foraging flies. Even heterospecific flies and fly-look-alike decoys were attractive, provided they visually resembled stable flies. As shown in separate bioassays, chemical cues of bait flies on their own were not attractive to foraging flies. Our data suggest that foraging stable flies may aggregate on hosts. There are multiple prospective reasons for aggregated blood-feeding to be selected for. Conspecifics on a host animal may indicate the presence of a suitable feeding resource, and group-feeding may help suppress immune responses of host animals." This dataset contains: #---"Cage and Room Bioassays"--- Data files, R scripts, output graphs (prior to graphical editing using Inkscape; .pdf files), and edited graphs (.png files) for the behavioral cage and room bioassay experiments. #---"Olfactometer Bioassays"--- Data files, R scripts, output graphs (prior to graphical editing using Inkscape; .pdf files), and edited graphs (.png files) for the behavioral olfactometer bioassay experiments. #---"Spectroscopy"--- Reflectance measurement data files, R script, output graph (prior to graphical editing using Inkscape; .pdf file), and edited graph (.png file) used to generate Figure S2. Additional files: "All Figures.svg" - spread page containing all edited graphs, schematic diagrams, and their graphical assets (used for graphical editing in Inkscape). "Stable Fly, Lab Bioassays.Rproj" - R project file. Analyses were performed in Rstudio [R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16 ucrt) "Beagle Scouts"; RStudio version 2023.12.1+402 "Ocean Storm" Release]
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".