Prevalence and Intensity of Haemobaphes diceraus (Copepoda: Pennellidae) from Shiner Perch, Cymatogaster aggregata (Embiotocidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence and intensity of the hematophagous pennellid copepod Haemobaphes diceraus were monitored over a 10-mo period in shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata at Pipers Lagoon, Nanaimo, British Columbia. The prevalence and mean intensity of metamorphosed adult female H. diceraus (n = 421) were 10.0% and 1.2 (+/-0.5 SD), respectively. The majority (97.9%) of infected fish had single infections, reflecting the possibility of intensity-dependent parasite-induced mortality, rejection of additional parasites, or both. Transforming females were detected throughout the year; however, there was no detectable seasonal pattern of colonization. Neither copepodids nor adult males of H. diceraus were observed on the gills of shiner perch, and this was consistent with the hypothesis that an intermediate host harbors these stages. Males of Haemobaphes sp. infected the gills of bay pipefish Syngnathus griseolineatus with a prevalence and mean intensity of 56.0% and 6.8 +/- 3.7, respectively. Transmission of H. diceraus to shiner perch probably occurs in inshore protected areas, where shiner perch ecologically overlap with the probable intermediate host of H. diceraus, the bay pipefish.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".