Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helminth parasites of fish in marine systems are often considered to be generalists, lacking host specificity for both intermediate and definitive hosts. In addition, many parasites in marine waters possess life cycles consisting of long-lived larval stages residing in intermediate and paratenic hosts. These properties are believed to be adaptations to the long food chains and the low densities of organisms distributed over broad spatial scales that are characteristic of open marine systems. Moreover, such properties are predicted to lead to the homogenization of parasite communities among fish species. Yet, these communities can be relatively distinct among marine fishes. For benthos, the heterogeneous horizontal distribution of invertebrates and fish with respect to sediment quality and water depth contributes to the formation of distinct parasite communities. Similarly, for the pelagic realm, vertical partitioning of animals with depth will lead to the segregation of parasites among fish hosts. Within each habitat, resource partitioning in terms of dietary preferences of fish further contributes to the establishment of distinct parasite assemblages. Parasite distributions are predicted to be superimposed on distributional patterns of free-living animals that participate as hosts in parasite life cycles. The purpose of this review is first, to summarize distribution patterns of invertebrates and fish in the marine environment and relate these patterns to helminth transmission. Second, patterns of transmission in marine systems are interpreted in the context of food web structure. Consideration of the structure and dynamics of food webs permits predictions about the distribution and abundance of parasites. Lastly, parasites that influence food web structure by regulating the abundance of dominant host species are briefly considered in addition to the effects of pollution and exploitation on food webs and parasite transmission.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".