MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130024872 · doi:10.1645/ge-771r.1

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INFLUENCING TREMATODE PREVALENCE IN GREY TREE FROG (HYLA VERSICOLOR) TADPOLES IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

2006· article· en· W2130024872 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janet Koprivnikar, Robert L. Baker, Mark R. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHylaBiologyTree frogEcologyHabitatZoologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence or increased prevalence of various parasites may be linked to alterations in host-parasite interactions caused by environmental changes. We investigated prevalence of trematode infections in grey tree frog (Hyla versicolor) tadpoles from ponds in nonagricultural settings versus ponds adjacent to cornfields in southern Ontario. We found that agricultural activity was a significant factor in determining the percentage of tadpoles infected by 1 or more trematodes from 1 or more species (combined trematode infection). However, we found no associations between combined trematode infection and forest cover; pond size; road density; and measures of water quality, such as nitrate level and the presence of the herbicide atrazine. Although combined trematode prevalence was associated only with agricultural activity, prevalence of Alaria species showed a positive association with forest cover. This latter result probably reflects the importance of habitat suitability for the canid definitive hosts of this trematode species.

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)0.000
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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207