MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164537809 · doi:10.4039/n08-017

Survey of nasal mites (Rhinonyssidae, Ereynetidae, and Turbinoptidae) associated with birds in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada

2008· article· en· W2164537809 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wayne Knee, H. C. Proctor, Terry D. Galloway

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaCarleton University
FundersAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsMesostigmataProstigmataAcariMiteBiologyZoologyObligateEcologyVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three major lineages of mites (Arachnida: Acari) are parasitic in the nasal passages of birds: Rhinonyssidae (Mesostigmata), Ereynetidae (Prostigmata), Cytoditidae, and Turbinoptidae (Astigmata). The most diverse group of avian nasal mites is the Rhinonyssidae, which are obligate endoparasites of non-ratite birds worldwide. Prior to this study, there were only four published and three unpublished records of nasal mites from birds in Canada. In Alberta, 15% of 450 birds (154 species) examined during 2003–2007 were infested with nasal mites; in Manitoba, 16% of 2447 birds (196 species) examined during 1996–2006 were infested. We have expanded the known records of host – nasal mite species in Canada from 7 to 102, a 14-fold increase. There are now 50 species of Rhinonyssidae, 7 species of Ereynetidae, and 1 species of Turbinoptidae known from birds in Alberta and Manitoba. We predict that at least 70 species of rhinonyssid mites can be found in Canada.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207