Prevalence and evolutionary relationships of haematozoan parasites in native versus introduced populations of common myna<i>Acridotheres tristis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of introduced species is frequently explained by their escape from natural enemies in the introduced region. We tested the enemy release hypothesis with respect to two well studied blood parasite genera (Plasmodium and Haemoproteus) in native and six introduced populations of the common myna Acridotheres tristis. Not all comparisons of introduced populations to the native population were consistent with expectations of the enemy release hypothesis. Native populations show greater overall parasite prevalence than introduced populations, but the lower prevalence in introduced populations is driven by low prevalence in two populations on oceanic islands (Fiji and Hawaii). When these are excluded, prevalence does not differ significantly. We found a similar number of parasite lineages in native populations compared to all introduced populations. Although there is some evidence that common mynas may have carried parasite lineages from native to introduced locations, and also that introduced populations may have become infected with novel parasite lineages, it may be difficult to differentiate between parasites that are native and introduced, because malarial parasite lineages often do not show regional or host specificity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".