MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103791039

Metabolic impacts of winter tick infestations on calf moose.

2007· article· en· W2103791039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anthony R. Musante, Peter J. Pekins, David L. Scarpitti

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTick infestationInfestationTickBiologyAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineAnemiaEcologyMedicineAgronomyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moose (Alces alces) are susceptible to late winter mortality from infestation of winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) throughout much of North America. Calves, perhaps more so than other ages of moose, likely experience chronic, and eventually acute anemia from blood removal by adult female ticks that peaks during weeks 4 - 6 of the 8-week engorgement period. We modeled the potential metabolic impact on protein and energy balance of moose calves associated with blood loss during four levels, low to severe, of winter tick infestation. Our conservative estimates indicated that total blood loss in weeks 4 - 6, as a percent of total blood volume, ranged from 27 to 48% and 64 to 112% during moderate (30,000 ticks) and severe (70,000 ticks) infestations, respectively. The percent of the daily metabolizable energy requirement needed to replace daily blood loss during weeks 4 - 6 was 4.9 - 8.2% and 11.4 - 19.2% during moderate and severe infestations, respectively. The protein GHoFLWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKEORRGORVVDQGUHJHQHUDWLRQZDVWKHPRVW �FULWLFDOPHWDEROLFLPSDFW���'DLO\� protein loss during weeks 4 - 6 was 29 - 49% and 68 - 114% of the daily protein requirement in PRGHUDWHDQGVHYHUHLQIHVWDWLRQV��UHVSHFWLYHO\���'DLO\�SURWHLQ�

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations51
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207