The prevalence and persistence of sigma virus, a biparentally transmitted parasite of <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: How do vertically transmitted parasites persist? ORGANISMS: (host) and sigma virus (parasite). FIELD SITE: Peach stands in northern Georgia, USA, on a transect between Macon and Athens. EMPIRICAL METHODS: We estimated prevalence in the field. We also estimated male and female transmission in the laboratory, using field-collected animals as parents. We further quantified patrilineal (father to son) transmission in the laboratory, and estimated cost of infection (virulence) by quantifying decreased egg production of infected flies. MATHEMATICAL METHODS: Discrete-time, deterministic models for prevalence; analysis of stability of disease-free and endemic equilibria; numerical computation of equilibria based on empirical estimates. KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Random mating, discrete generations, cost of infection to females only. PREDICTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The model allows persistence under parameter estimates obtained for this population. Uncertainty in parameters leads to wide confidence intervals on the predicted prevalence, which may be systematically underestimated due to Jensen's inequality. Male transmission is required for persistence, and multiple generations of strictly patrilineal transmission are possible in the laboratory, albeit with decreasing transmission efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".