Prevalence, intensity, and geographic distribution of sinus worm (<i>Skrjabingylus nasicola</i>) infection in mink (<i>Mustela vison</i>) of central Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mink (Mustela vison Schreber, 1777) skulls (n = 630) from 18 geographic regions throughout central Ontario were examined for levels of sinus worm (Skrjabingylus nasicola (Leuckart, 1842)) infection by exposing and counting adult worms present in each sinus cavity. Site differences in both infection prevalence (range 55.6%–100%) and infection intensity (2.4 ± 0.3 to 16.1 ± 2.2 worms per infected animal; mean ± SE) were found, but neither latitudinal nor longitudinal trends were apparent. Temporal differences in infection prevalence were not observed among selected regions sampled over two and three consecutive trapping seasons; however, at two of the three sites monitored, infection intensities increased approximately twofold. Juvenile animals of either sex indicated elevated levels of infection prevalence relative to adult males, while juvenile males, but not females, indicated significantly higher infection intensities than those seen in the adult male cohort. No bias toward left or right sinus location was noted in either prevalence or intensity of infections. Comparison of age- and sex-adjusted body mass failed to provide evidence for reduced physical condition in infected animals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".