Parasitism of<i>Hylodes phyllodes</i>(Anura: Cycloramphidae) by<i>Hannemania</i>sp. (Acari: Trombiculidae) in an area of Atlantic Forest, Ilha Grande, Southeastern Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied some parameters of the parasitism by the mite Hannemonia sp. on the endemic frog Hylodes phyllodes in the Atlantic Forest of Ilha Grande (Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil). Prevalence, mean abundance, mean intensity and total intensity of infestation, body regions infected, and host sexual differences in parasitism rate of the larvae of Hannemania sp. on individuals of H. phyllodes were assessed. Prevalence was 86.5% (N = 37; total of 1,745 larvae of Hannemania sp) for male hosts and 91.7% (N = 12; total of 330 larvae) for female hosts, with no significant difference between the sexes. Overall prevalence of Hannemania sp. on H. phyllodes was 87.7%. Mean intensity of infestation in males (54.5 +/- 42.5; range 1-173 larvae) was higher than in females (29.9 +/- 47.6; range 1-166). We conclude that the rates of intensity, abundance, and prevalence of Hannemania larvae parasitizing Hylodes phyllodes at Ilha Grande were considerably high, suggesting that this species of anuran constitutes a relevant host for this mite species to complete its life-cycle in the area. Differences between males and females in infestation rates probably reflect their differential use of space in the forest.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".