MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146910837 · doi:10.4039/n06-061

New record of<i>Chrysomya rufifacies</i>(Diptera: Calliphoridae) in Canada: predicted range expansion and potential effects on native species

2007· article· en· W2146910837 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Y. Rosati, Sherah L. VanLaerhoven

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCarrionCalliphoridaeRange (aeronautics)EcologyBiologyMaggotSpring (device)GeographyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This is the first report of the hairy maggot blow fly, Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart), in Canada since its arrival in the continental United States of America in 1982. Specimens were collected from one swine ( Sus scrofa L.) carcass in fall 2004 and again from six swine carcasses at three rural sites within the Windsor/Essex County region of southwestern Ontario in fall 2005. Based upon the biological characteristics of the species and the absence of specimens from spring and summer carrion-insect collections, it is suggested that C. rufifacies is present in southwestern Ontario during the fall season, after range expansion from the midcontinental United States of America during the spring and summer months. However, considering the projected increases in temperature due to global warming, establishment of C. rufifacies is predicted to extend well into southern Ontario and Quebec. Current and predicted distributions based upon the biological temperature requirements of C. rufifacies are depicted through geographic range maps. The potential economic and ecological impacts are discussed, with emphasis upon negative interactions between C. rufifacies and several native blow fly species, particularly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fabr.).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207