MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110728977 · doi:10.4039/tce.2014.84

Seasonal population dynamics of four species of chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Menoponidae, Philopteridae) on feral pigeons (Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae)

2015· article· en· W2110728977 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry D. Galloway, Robert J. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLouseZoologyPopulationHost (biology)ReproductionEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seasonal dynamics of louse (Phthiraptera) populations on feral pigeons, Columba livia Gmelin (Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae) were investigated from 2003 to 2012 in southern Manitoba, Canada. Pigeons were infested with: Philopteridae – Campanulotes compar (Burmeister), Columbicola columbae (Linnaeus), and Coloceras tovornikae Tendeiro; Menoponidae – Hohorstiella lata (Piaget). We consider the hypothesis that four species living on the same host show similar seasonal dynamics, coordinated by the life history of the host. Adults of both sexes and nymphs of all four species were present on pigeons throughout the year, consistent with continuous feeding and reproduction. Campanulotes compar and C. columbae populations were low in spring and peaked in September, with C. columbae showing greater seasonal changes for all population parameters. Coloceras tovornikae showed two annual peaks in abundance in spring and late summer, and H. lata was most abundant in the cold months of the year. Over 10 years, the four species showed distinct seasonal dynamics, although they live on the same birds. Seasonal patterns provided no evidence that louse reproduction or abundance is coordinated by the long breeding and moulting seasons of the host.

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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207