MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030860586 · doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2009.06.002

Biodiversity and Lyme disease: Dilution or amplification?

2009· article· en· W2030860586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyme diseaseIxodes scapularisBorrelia burgdorferiBiodiversityIxodesAbundance (ecology)Transmission (telecommunications)BiologyDiseaseEcologyMedicineImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduced Lyme disease risk by the 'dilution effect' is often cited as an example of biodiversity providing 'ecosystem services' to public health. Using a mechanistic model we investigated how transmission of the Lyme disease agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, by Ixodes scapularis ticks amongst highly efficient reservoir mice is affected by varying the abundance of a less efficient reservoir host. Simulations indicated either amplification or dilution may occur, with the outcome depending precisely on mechanisms of competition, host contact rates with ticks, and acquired host resistance to ticks. Quantifying these mechanisms will be crucial to predicting how biodiversity affects Lyme disease risk.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it