Distribution and abundance of hematophagous flies (Glossinidae,<i>Stomoxys</i>, and Tabanidae) in two national parks of Gabon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to minimize risks of pathogen transmission with the development of ecotourism in Gabon, a seasonal inventory has been performed in five contrasted biotopes in Ivindo (INP) and Moukalaba-Doudou (MDNP) National Parks. A total of 10,033 hematophagous flies were captured. The Glossinidae, with six different species identified, was the most abundant group and constitutes about 60% of the captured flies compared to the Stomoxys (6 species also identified) and Tabanidae with 28% and 12%, respectively. The Glossinidae showed a higher rate of capture in primary forest and in research camps. In INP, the Stomoxys showed a higher rate of capture in secondary forest and at village borders, whereas in MDNP the Stomoxys were captured more in the savannah area. Thus, each fly group seemed to reach maximum abundance in different habitats. The Glossinidae were more abundant in primary forest and near research camps while Stomoxys were more abundant in secondary forest and savannah. The Tabanidae did not show a clear habitat preference.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".