MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151607066 · doi:10.1139/z04-171

Effect of the cestode macroparasite <i>Schistocephalus pungitii</i> on the reproductive success of ninespine stickleback, <i>Pungitius pungitius</i>

2004· article· en· W2151607066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David C. Heins, Britt Ulinski, J. M. Johnson, John A. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTulane UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSticklebackBiologyCestodaGasterosteusParasitismReproductionZoologyTrematodaEcologyParasite hostingHost (biology)HelminthsFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantified the relationship between reproductive status in the ninespine stickleback, Pungitius pungitius (L., 1758), and parasitism by plerocercoids of the cestode Schistocephalus pungitii Dubinina, 1959 in Airolo Lake, Alaska, using fish specimens from the 1994, 1998, and 2000 reproductive seasons. Infected females were inhibited from producing clutches of eggs and infected males showed much-reduced testicular condition. These deleterious effects on reproduction appear to involve nutrient theft. In addition, there appears to be a greater physical effect of the parasites crushing the gonads of host fish. The results of this study support the theoretical prediction that S. pungitii is a parasitic castrator, as the fitness of the majority of infected female ninespine stickleback was apparently reduced to zero, and there may be a similar effect among the majority of male ninespine stickleback. The symptoms of infection may represent adaptive parasite manipulations resulting in larger, more fecund parasites or an extended parasite-transmission period, although the possibility that the symptoms represent nonadaptive side effects cannot be excluded.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207