Off-host survival and reproductive success of adult female winter ticks, Dermacentor albipictus in seven habitat types of Central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter tick is an important pest of moose which affects the physical and physiological well-being of moose. All moose in Alberta become infested with winter ticks every year and suffer morbidity and mortality from the infestation. The ticks are acquired in autumn in the habitats of EINP during search for food and other ecological needs. When blood-engorged female winter ticks, Dermacentor albipictus, drop from moose in March-April, they have little choice in where to oviposit, because their dispersal is minimal. The habitat in which they drop is the habitat in which they must survive and produce offspring. Different habitats with different microclimatic conditions influence survival and reproduction of winter ticks differently. Off-host survival and reproductive success of adult female winter ticks were determined in 7 habitat types of Elk Island National Park, Central Alberta, 1992. Adult ticks, in gauze bags, were placed at ground surface in late April and monitored for survival, egg-laying and larval survival to November. Generally, more ticks survived to produce eggs that hatched to larvae and the larvae survived longer, in habitat types with open canopies (rank in order: upland shrub, grassland, open aspen), where ground-litter temperatures in summer were higher, than in habitat types with closed canopies (labrador tea, spruce forest, willow shrubland). Results may explain why moose, Alces alces, in Alberta that live in areas with open canopies (i.e., aspen parkland and southern fringe boreal forest) appear to suffer more from winter ticks than moose living in spruce-dominated boreal mixed wood forests. Moose in these areas probably acquire more ticks. (Journal of the Ghana Science Association: 2001 3(3): 109-116)
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) | 0.001 | 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".