MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157661349 · doi:10.1139/z01-018

Distribution of <i>Carnus</i> <i>hemapterus</i> in a starling colony

2001· article· en· W2157661349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
András Liker, Márta Márkus, Ágnes Vozár, Eszter Zemankovics, Lajos Rózsa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSzent István Egyetem
KeywordsBiologySturnusStarlingHatchingBroodZoologySex ratioNest (protein structural motif)Abundance (ecology)EcologyRange (aeronautics)PopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of the haematophagous fly Carnus hemapterus among starling (Sturnus vulgaris) broods was investigated in a nest-box colony. Prevalence of infection was 94% among broods and 69% among individual nestlings, while median abundance was 54 flies per brood (range 0–284 flies; n = 33) and 8 flies per individual nestling (range 0–117 flies; n = 140). Parasites exhibited an aggregated distribution among starling broods. Carnus hemapterus populations changed significantly during the development of nestlings: fly abundance increased rapidly after nestlings hatched, peaked 5–8 days after hatching, and decreased thereafter. The proportion of winged flies (assumed to be the transmissive form) and the proportion of male flies decreased with increasing nestling mass. Measures of within-colony spatial position of nests were not related to mean brood abundance, proportion of winged flies, or sex ratio of the flies. Parasite abundance did not correlate with mortality rate or growth rate of nestlings. In conclusion, nestling developmental stage was the only significant predictor of variation in C. hemapterus populations in this starling colony.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207