MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142238587 · doi:10.1673/031.010.5501

Biting Midges of the Genus<i>Culicoides</i>in South Carolina Zoos

2010· article· en· W2142238587 on OpenAlexaff
Mark P. Nelder, Dustin A. Swanson, Peter H. Adler, William L. Grogan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicVector-Borne Animal Diseases
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
FundersCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServiceClemson UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCeratopogonidaeCulicoidesBiologyZoologyUltraviolet lightBird nestBitingEcologyVeterinary medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) were collected during the summer of 2007 at the Greenville and Riverbanks Zoos in South Carolina with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) traps equipped with ultraviolet or incandescent lights and baited with carbon dioxide. Sixteen species of Culicoides were collected, four of which represented more than 80%. They were Culicoides guttipennis (Coquillett), Culicoides mulrenanni Beck, Culicoides obsoletus (Meigen), and Culicoides sanguisuga (Coquillett). C. guttipennis was found on a dead colobus monkey and a dead golden-headed lion tamarin; Culicoides husseyi Wirth & Blanton was collected from an unidentified, abandoned bird's nest. Ultraviolet light-equipped traps captured significantly more Culicoides specimens than traps with incandescent light. Half of the collected species previously have been associated with vertebrate pathogens, indicating a potential risk to captive animals.

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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Insect ScienceSame topicVector-Borne Animal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207