New distribution information for Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker) (Diptera, Culicidae) in northern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of West Nile virus (WNV) in North America in 1999 (Jia et al. 1999) prompted an increased interest in the biology of mosquito species throughout Canada, including the province of British Columbia. Increased funding for research was further fueled by the presence of WNV in neighboring provinces and states. Recent surveys of mosquito diversity have been carried out primarily to determine the geographic distributions of potential WNV vectors and, therefore, to help estimate the risk of WNV infection in human and other populations in various regions of the province (Stephen et al. 2006). While WNV has been the arbovirus emphasized in recent years, improved understanding of mosquito distributions and biology may prove invaluable if other pathogens become threats in the future. In BC, prior to 2003, surveys of mosquito species had been largely restricted to the southern half of the province (Hearle 1927, Belton and Belton 1981). Early results from surveys conducted by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) suggested that the estimated geographic ranges for several species in BC were in need of revision. In particular, Coquillettidia (=Mansonia) perturbans, has been described by most authors as having a southerly distribution (Hearle 1927, Wood et al. 1979, Belton and Belton 1981, Belton 1983). This species was trapped as far north as Prince George (53.9°N, 122.8°W) in 2004 (BCCDC 2005). The larvae attach their siphons to the roots of wetland plants, such as cattails (Typha latifolia L.) and obtain oxygen from the root aerenchyma; this habit makes the larvae difficult to catch, monitor or manage (Belton 1983). The cattail marsh habitat type is common throughout British Columbia, especially at low elevations in areas with warm summers (Mackenzie and Moran 2004), suggesting that Cq. perturbans may be far more widely distributed than previously thought. In 2005, 2007, and 2010, surveys were conducted in northern British Columbia (Figure 1) with CDC (Center for Disease Control) miniature light traps fitted with incandescent light bulbs and using dry ice as a source of carbon dioxide for the primary attractant. Traps were placed
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".