MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parasite assemblages distinguish populations of a migratory passerine on its breeding grounds

2008· article· en· W2080956886 on OpenAlexafffund
Kate L. Durrant, Peter P. Marra, Sylvia M. Fallon, Gabriel J. Colbeck, H. Lisle Gibbs, Keith A. Hobson, D. Ryan Norris, Brittany M. Bernik, V. L. Lloyd, Robert C. Fleischer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMax Bell FoundationSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPasserineBiologyRange (aeronautics)FeatherEcologyParasite hostingPopulationZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We attempted to establish migratory connectivity patterns for American redstarts Setophaga ruticilla between their breeding and wintering grounds by characterizing the composition of their haematozoan parasite assemblages in different parts of their range. We detected significant but limited geographic structuring of haematozoan parasite lineages across the breeding range of the redstart. We found that redstarts from the south‐eastern (SE) region of the breeding range had a significantly different haematozoan parasite assemblage compared with populations sampled throughout the rest of the breeding range. Evidence using stable isotopes from feathers previously demonstrated that redstarts from the SE of the breeding range also have a unique and separate wintering range. Thus, although two methods of estimating migratory connectivity have now both shown the SE US breeding sub‐population of redstarts to be distinct from other populations on both the breeding and wintering grounds, conclusive migratory connectivity for this species as a whole could not be established.

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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207