The decay of parasite community similarity in ring‐billed gulls <i>Larus delawarensis</i> and other hosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The similarity of parasite communities often decays with increasing geographic distance. Here, geographic distance decay is evaluated in parasite communities of 145 ring‐billed gulls from six localities in Quebec, Canada, among both individual gulls and gull populations. Spatial decay in similarity is compared to temporal decay, using host age differences as a distance measure. The similarity of parasite communities of individual gulls from localities spanning 300 km within Quebec is more strongly associated with host age differences than with geographic distance. Among gull populations in Quebec, only geographic distance is significantly related to parasite community similarity. The explanatory power of geographic distance is higher still when data from Quebec are combined with those from a study conducted 3000 km away, indicating an effect of spatial scale on geographic distance decay. The rate at which parasite community similarity decays with distance in gulls is compared with that of 17 other host species using data from published studies. Spatial scale explains two thirds of the variance in distance decay rates, and some of the remaining variance is explained by latitude. The rate of decay in parasite community similarity with distance is greater in larger scale studies and further away from the equator. Traits of host species traits such as vagility, body weight and trophic level have little or no effect on distance decay rates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".