MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170593079 · doi:10.4039/n07-041

Serendipity with chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Menoponidae, Philopteridae) infesting rock pigeons and mourning doves (Aves: Columbiformes: Columbidae) in Manitoba, with new records for North America and Canada

2008· article· en· W2170593079 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry D. Galloway, Ricardo L. Palma

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyZoologyInfestationVeterinary medicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An extensive survey of chewing lice from rock pigeon, Columba livia Gmelin, and mourning dove, Zenaida macroura (L.), carried out from 1994 to 2000 and from 2003 to 2006 in Manitoba, Canada, produced the following new records: Coloceras tovornikae Tendeiro for North America; Columbicola macrourae (Wilson), Hohorstiella lata (Piaget), H . paladinella Hill and Tuff, and Physconelloides zenaidurae (McGregor) for Canada; and Bonomiella columbae Emerson, Campanulotes compar (Burmeister), Columbicola baculoides (Paine), and C. columbae (L.) for Manitoba. We collected 25 418 lice of four species ( C. compar , C. columbae , H . lata , and C . tovornikae ) from 322 rock pigeons. The overall prevalence of infestation was 78.9%, 52.5%, and 23.3% for C . compar , C . columbae , and H . lata , respectively. Coloceras tovornikae was not discovered until 2003, after which its prevalence was 39.9% on 114 pigeons. We collected 1116 lice of five species ( P . zenaidurae , C . baculoides , C. macrourae , H . paladinella , and B . columbae ) from 117 mourning doves. Physconelloides zenaidurae was encountered most often (prevalence was 36.7%), while the prevalence of the other four species was 26.3%, 18.4%, 3.5%, and 2.6%, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207