PATTERNS OF GASTROINTESTINAL PARASITISM AMONG FIVE SYMPATRIC PRAIRIE CARNIVORES: ARE MALES RESERVOIRS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male vertebrates are believed to be disproportionately vulnerable to parasites, but empirical support for this contention is mixed. We tested the hypothesis of higher levels of parasitism in males with the use of counts of gastrointestinal helminths in 5 sympatric mammalian carnivores (American badgers, coyotes, red foxes, raccoons, striped skunks) from central Saskatchewan. Parasite burdens for females and males of each host species were compared with the use of prevalence (percentage of hosts infected), intensity (parasites per infected host), and overdispersion (proportion of heavily infected hosts that were male). Of 30 comparisons (13 each for prevalence and intensity, 4 for overdispersion), male bias was detected 8 times (27%), whereas female bias was detected only once (3%), adding some support to the notion that male mammals are more susceptible to parasitism. However, most of the statistical comparisons we undertook revealed no sexual bias (n=21, 70%), suggesting that differential patterns of infection are not ubiquitous in mammals. Moreover, when detected, the magnitude and direction of bias varied among host species, helminth species, and metrics of infection. We conclude that sympatric and ecologically similar mammal species will not always share the tendency for males to be more susceptible to parasitism, and that studies incorporating multiple parasites and metrics of infection are more likely to detect sex bias.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".