MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wetland type differentially affects ectoparasitic mites and their damselfly hosts

2009· article· en· W2078152721 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joanna A. James, Daniel G. Bert, Mark R. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDamselflyEcologyBiologyOdonataWetlandAbundance (ecology)MiteHabitatParasitismHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of artificial habitat in altered landscapes on species interactions and their suite of enemies is largely unknown. Water mites have been associated with reduced fitness of model damselflies. Mite parasitism was variable, but higher for Ischnura verticalis damselflies from natural, than from artificial, wetlands in the same region. There were no differences in timing of sampling, temperature during sampling, or host age or sex composition of samples between wetland types. Landscape structure might constrain mite presence or abundance at wetland sites or wetland type might be a better predictor of mites, based on factors such as prey abundance. Fewer mites on damselflies from numerous artificial wetlands means that the strength of parasite‐mediated selection is likely less than would be inferred if only natural wetlands were surveyed. Such effects of human changes in habitats on host species probably occur often.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207