MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033773602 · doi:10.1139/z03-039

Effects of initial (larval) size and host body temperature on growth in trematodes

2003· article· en· W2033773602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Poulin, A. David M. Latham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEctothermBiologyLarvaHost (biology)ZoologyEcologyAmphibianMetamorphosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For ectotherms, temperature is an important correlate of variation in body size within species. Variation in body size among related species could also be attributable in part to temperature if the different species grow under different thermal regimes. The roles of both initial (larval) size and host body temperature on final (adult) size of parasitic trematodes were investigated in a comparative analysis. Trematodes are a good model group for such a study, with almost half of known species growing at high and constant temperatures in endothermic vertebrates and the rest at lower and fluctuating temperatures in ectothermic vertebrates. The relative growth of trematodes, i.e., their growth relative to the size of their larvae, varied greatly among species. Increases in body size from the cercarial larval stage to the adult stage averaged almost 40-fold (maximum 1300-fold), whereas increases in size from the metacercarial stage to the adult stage averaged 6-fold (maximum 110-fold). There were no differences between trematodes in ectothermic hosts and trematodes in endothermic hosts with respect to these measures of relative growth, however, which suggests that host type and the thermal regime provided by the host have no effect on the growth of trematodes from larval to adult stages. In contrast, the final (adult) body size of trematodes appears to be determined to some extent by their initial (larval) size, independently of the type of host in which they developed.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207