MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125766000 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0092

Sprint speed is related to blood parasites, but not to ectoparasites, in an insular population of lacertid lizards

2013· article· en· W2125766000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mario Garrido, Valentín Pérez‐Mellado

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJunta de Castilla y León
KeywordsBiologyLacertidaeLizardParasitismEcologySprintPopulationPredationMiteParasite loadZoologyHost (biology)SauriaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parasites are able to negatively affect the locomotor performance of their hosts, and consequently, their biological fitness. In this study, we examine the relationship between parasitism and burst speed in an insular population of Lilford’s Wall Lizard (Podarcis lilfordi (Günther, 1874)). Podarcis lilfordi is normally infected with haemogregarine blood parasites and mites in our study location, Aire Island (Balearic Islands, Spain). Unlike the results from other studies on lizards, we found a significant negative correlation between intensity of infection by haemogregarines and burst speed. Body condition is also significantly related to burst speed. Thus, lizards with a lower blood parasite load and better body condition show a faster sprint speed. Intensity of infection by haemoparasites shows a lack of correlation with both body condition and mite load. Our results are compared with those from other lizard species living in different habitats. We discuss the influence of insular environmental conditions on locomotor performances, such as low predation pressure, lack of competitors, and high lizard densities.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207