Host-Seeking Mosquito Distribution in Habitat Mosaics of Southern Great Plains Cross-Timbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscape fragmentation often increases contact between humans, wildlife, and potential disease vectors. We examined how adult host-seeking mosquitoes respond to small-scale habitat differences within southern Great Plains cross-timber habitat mosaics in northern Oklahoma consisting of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginianus L.) woodlands, mixed-deciduous woodlands, and adjacent grasslands. Mosquitoes responded most markedly to an overall grassland-woodland habitat gradient, with species separating by habitat based largely on tree density. Differences in abundance of host-seeking females occurred at fine spatial scales, sometimes varying dramatically over distances as little as 200 m when tree density changed abruptly. Tree type was not as important as tree density, although the West Nile virus vector Culex tarsalis Coquillett showed a greater affinity for areas containing eastern red cedar than for deciduous woodlands. The invasive Aedes albopictus Skuse showed equal affinity for both tree types. Conversion of grassland habitats in the Great Plains to more vegetated environments associated with humans (towns and homesteads) and the invasion of grasslands by eastern red cedar may change the species composition of mosquito, bird, and mammal assemblages and potentially alter arbovirus exposure for humans.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".