<i>Culex pipiens</i>(Culicidae) is attracted to humans in southern Ontario, but will it serve as a bridge vector of West Nile virus?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We tested whether the known bird-biting mosquito,Culex pipiensLinnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae), is attracted to human hosts by placing humans at ground level (∼1.5 m) or in the forest canopy (∼5 m) in a Niagara woodlot. Modified Centers for Disease Control (CDC) miniature light traps (no light, no CO2) were placed next to the human hosts to capture the attracted mosquitoes. The human-baited traps were compared with control traps (standard CDC miniature light traps with CO2, but no light). As expected from previous research, there were moreC. pipienscaptured at the higher elevation than at ground level. Generally, they were attracted to control traps more than to human-baited traps at 5 m, whereas at 1.5 m there was no difference between the two trap types. As a comparison, mostAedes vexans(Meigen) mosquitoes were captured at the 1.5 m elevation but there were significantly more captured in the control traps than the human-baited traps during all periods. BecauseC. pipiensis attracted to humans throughout the entire season at the 1.5 m height (where they might encounter humans), it is likely thatC. pipienscan serve as a bridge vector of West Nile virus (WNV).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".