Feather mites are positively associated with daily survival in cliff swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feather mites (Acari: Astigmata) have been reported to be parasitic, commensal, and even mutualistic on the birds that serve as their hosts. We investigated whether there was a relationship between number of feather mites ( Pteronyssoides obscurus (Berlese, 1885)) on the wing and daily survival of cliff swallows ( Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (Vieillot, 1817)) during the breeding season at 12 nesting colonies in Nebraska in 2005. Survival of birds with known mite loads was monitored by mark–recapture, and survival models with and without a linear effect of mites were compared with the program MARK. For adult swallows, mites were positively associated with daily survival at six colonies, negatively associated at two colonies, and there was no relationship at four colonies. For recently fledged juveniles studied at two colonies, survival varied positively with mite load at one, while the other showed no relationship. Feather mites may provide direct benefits to cliff swallows by consuming old oil, pollen, fungi, and harmful bacteria on the feathers or by pre-empting resources used by deleterious fungi or bacteria. The data do not support a truly parasitic relationship in which mites are costly to cliff swallows; these particular feather mites may be beneficial mutualists.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".